CorbinFisher.com, the gay porn studio threatening to sue illegal file sharers, doesn’t seem too concerned that its lawsuits against some 40,000 so-far-anonymous BitTorrent users might out closeted gay teens who live in violent homophobic households. In response to one person’s email to the company expressing disdain, CorbinFisher’s counsel Marc Randazza, a First Amendment attorney, writes, “Liberty Media produces straight content too. So any thieving little shit who gets caught can very easily lie to his parents that he was looking at straight porn.” Harsh. And, well, that claim is not true at all.

In serving any person with a copyright lawsuit, a plaintiff must explicitly state in court documents — all of which would almost certainly be available to the public — what content the defendant allegedly infringed on. In this case it would have to include the file name and BitTorrent hash/name. Otherwise, no judge would ever permit a suit to move forward. “You’re claiming this person illegally stole ‘some stuff?'” Not gonna fly. Which means CorbinFisher would absolutely need to, in order to meet the most basic requirements of tort law, lay out specifically which content a person allegedly shared. And that lawsuit would be served to the owner of the Internet connection used to share the files (i.e. a kid’s parents). And thus, it wouldn’t take long for the parent to figure out what type of content his kid is accused of uploading, even if the plaintiff is listed only as “Liberty Media,” parent of CorbinFisher.

In another email response published by UnicornBooty.com, CorbinFisher’s attorney claims, “I have allowed them [accused file sharers] every courtesy I could, and have offered to support virtually any lie they want me to support (for example, they were looking at Corbins Coeds). Nobody has ever taken me up on that offer.” So now CorbinFisher is willing to lie in court documents about what type of content the defendant is accused of illegally accessing? Such a move won’t just the case tossed out of court — it could get CorbinFisher’s counsel disbarred. (Find me one judge who will tolerate a plaintiff purposefully misleading the court by knowingly providing factual inaccurances.)

But hey, it’s not like CorbinFisher wants to out gay kids with these lawsuits. They’ve done the “math,” talked to the experts (sorry, expert, singular), and found through their completely flawless calculations that only a negligible number of gay teens would attempt to hurt themselves if they were sued (though it appears no calculations were performed about the kids whose parents will do something negative).

Furthermore, once this myth of the “gay teen crisis” arose, we actually did give a shit. We gave a shit enough to consult with a nationally-known sex therapist about it. We had him second guess our actions and we asked him for his honest opinion as to whether we were possibly creating such a problem. His answer – that if we bring in all the possible co-factors, this might cause “acting-out-behavior” in 1 in 100,000 people. So, lets take our 40,000 potential defendants. Lets cut that to how many are possibly closeted. Half? So now its 1 in 20,000. How many are teenagers? 1/4? Now we’re down to 5,000 teenagers — and I think that is a generous number, at best. How many of them are closeted? Half? Now, 2500. How many of them are from families that won’t be supportive? Half? 1250. How many of them are even possibly on the verge of doing something negative to themselves? 500? I think all these numbers are pretty generous to your “think of the children” meme. But, I don’t have a degree in math… if you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of a negative event, and there are 500 potential subjects, what is the percentage chance of a negative event?

So, in sum: A closeted gay kid who doesn’t fully understand copyright law is a “thieving little shit,” and the chances of him getting beat up by his parents for being gay, or taking his own life, are small enough to risk outing him.

None of this is surprising. Don’t ever believe people like this actually care about their customers. It’s all about the money for them. But this is an extremely dangerous situation that needs to be averted. I realize these people seem not to have a heart but they need to really ask themselves if this is worth it. And the definite backlash if they continue with this.

Seems fair. Better to go after the people duplicating these videos not so much the kid who can’t afford the lawsuit. The company should go after the large offenders. Can’t see why not. They have to really.

Feb 24, 2011 at 12:25 pm · @Reply ·

PoopyJoe

Corbin Fisher is all heart. He really shows he cares about the gay community. Not being concerned if 500 teenagers kill themselves is really touching.

Take your business elsewhere people.

Feb 24, 2011 at 12:31 pm · @Reply ·

Oprah

Get over it. The days of PAY for INTERNET is gone. Music and Porn are yesterday news, thanks to free Internet Porn! YIPPIE!

Feb 24, 2011 at 12:34 pm · @Reply ·

Simon

Lol, I know that they’re greedy, but they’re also shameless about it. I thought it will be one big scary anti-thieving porn move, but looks like they really want to hit a jackpot. Now I’ll crack few more passwords at CF site. All in karma’s name bitches!

Perhaps he doesn’t know that there are bigger dicks, more attractive guys on the internet for FREE.

Feb 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm · @Reply ·

PoopyJoe

This story has become less about internet piracy and more about Corbin Fisher’s total lack of concern and respect for human life.

Feb 24, 2011 at 12:46 pm · @Reply ·

Toby

Suddenly, Corbin Fisher just gave me a softy.

Feb 24, 2011 at 12:55 pm · @Reply ·

Michael

These teens know perfectly well they are stealing and the legal consequences have been published for years. Grow up and face the world.

Feb 24, 2011 at 1:06 pm · @Reply ·

S

This communication is so awkward. I think they will lose customers because of this reply… Hard to correct this bad communication…

Feb 24, 2011 at 1:12 pm · @Reply ·

joe

If they didnt want to be outed, they shouldnt be breaking the law downloading the clips.

Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 pm · @Reply ·

deky

This is absolutely absurd. Rather than blame the kids, how about blame yourselves for giving out DRM free videos with your subscriptions that make it easy for people to share?

The potential for even one suicide should be enough to deter CF. The price they’ve placed is $1,900 per life… but what teen has $1,900? How about something more realistic, like making them pay for half a year of unlimited porn? That’s what… $180? Did CF really lose THAT much money? I doubt it.

If even ONE kid offs himself as a result of this lawsuit or crackdown or whatever it is, it isn’t worth it, and they are assholes for even saying this. We are talking about money versus human life.

Feb 24, 2011 at 1:32 pm · @Reply ·

MT

People who download copyrighted files have not stolen anything. They have committed copyright infringement. To anyone getting these terms confused: please stop calling BitTorrent users “thieves,” because that is not what they would be called in a court of law.

And yes, CF absolutely has no morals by trying to extort money from people because of the embarrassment factor in all of this. Boycott these leeches and spread the word that what they’re doing is wrong.

Feb 24, 2011 at 2:31 pm · @Reply ·

Cody

Why go after the downloaders when there are:

– Companies providing torrent softwares
– Uploaders sharing these files with thousands of people
– Websites providing free streaming of these same videos

they are attacking the wrong people.

Feb 24, 2011 at 2:43 pm · @Reply ·

Alex

While I think the comments from the lawyer are ridiculously flippant about possible life-threatening situations, I do think it’s wrong for people to steal from a site and sell the content. If these teens wanted free porn, they could’ve just gone to XTube. Stealing from the Corbin Fisher site is no different than stealing a DVD from Best Buy. Crime is crime.

Feb 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm · @Reply ·

Michael

Some of you people are really absurd. You act like there are millions of angelic closeted gay teens that are getting hurt by CF’s effort to put an end to larceny. This might make some sense it we were talking about a starving street urchin stealing an apple from a fruit vendor, but come on! We’re talking about hard core porn here, and illegal file sharing. These kids know exactly what they are doing, and most assuredly, know they are breaking the law. Zero sympathy here.

Feb 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm · @Reply ·

Steve

I don’t know why we’re still on this. CF isn’t going to go after 40,000 users. Even if they manage to get a few grand out of a handful of people, going after that many people is a huge amount of time and money, neither of which are good things to waste for a company that’s already trying to keep its head above the water.

1. This story hasn’t been covered in mainstream media. They haven’t issued formal announcements of their amnesty periods. If they were sincere about this, they would have made sure everyone knew about the grace period. Otherwise, a failure to make it widely known would look very bad for them if they brought someone to court.

2. Isn’t it interesting that they’ve been bragging about getting $250,000 just shortly before this episode? It seems like they were trying to scare people into confessing. I’ve also heard that they actually settled for a lot less than $250,000 in that case.

3. 40,000 IP addresses doesn’t necessarily target the actual offenders. A friend spending the night might have decided to abuse your home computer or something. Public places that offer wifi usually do so under a single IP address. I don’t think McDonalds will be too happy about getting a subpoena in the mail.

4. In the past, as in Napster and LimeWire, music companies were powerless against individual people and instead went after the services allowing the piracy. The fact that Corbin Fisher, which we all know has a lot less power than the RIAA, thinks they can go after 40,000+ Jane and John Does is laughable to say the least.

They’re trying to scare people into paying up, and the fact that gay blogs are actually helping them spread the fear is a little disappointing, but it is also genius, since they knew this “news story” would become an internet wildfire.

Would these teens face more prosecution for accessing porn while they are underage?

Feb 24, 2011 at 4:11 pm · @Reply ·

Mr. Enemabag Jones

Fuck Corbin Fisher. if any straight company was doing this, we’d be at their throats. Go after those douchebags, and crash them hard. Protest; boycott; expose and humuliate. Ruin Corbin Fisher and make the site’s owner kill himself.

Feb 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm · @Reply ·

Bill

BOYCOTT CORBIN FISHER. CANCEL YOUR MEMBERSHIPS IF YOU HAVE ONE.

Send them a message that immediately effects their wallet, and they will stop this bullshit.

Feb 24, 2011 at 4:25 pm · @Reply ·

Tylertime

How “closeted” are these supposed teens if they are downloading and then sharing the porn? If you were truly scared of being caught do you think kids would really download porn on their computers which are most likely shared with their parents or computers that their parents could easily check? If a teen was scared of getting busted why not just watch a free stream of porn on Xtube, Rocketube, pornortube, etc. and then clear the computer’s history. Teens today are certainly more savvy about computers than most people over 30 and they definitely are aware of their actions being illegal.

On another point, based on the guys that CF has in their porn I don’t think many teens are stealing it. It seems more geared towards older men interested in younger guys.

Feb 24, 2011 at 4:30 pm · @Reply ·

ryan123

You guys cannot be serious with this article, right? Unicorn’s article was some of the most prolific false reporting of facts I have ever seen in my 23 years of life.

Second, this article is almost as bad for linking to it.

Third, as MOST of the comments reference theres “TONS OF FREE GAY PORN WITH BETTER LOOKING AND BIGGER DICKS”- okay, then theres your answer. Instead of stealing Corbin’s go to one of those “better” free sites. I could possibly understand if this was the ONLY way for some gay 12 year old to explore his sexuality, but its not- 1/2 the people chastising Randazza admit to other alternatives besides stealing.

Get over it already, you broke the law- pay for it. If you were that concerned with being outted you could have used another site or all that free porn thats “better”, right?

People should not be sued for breaking the law because it might get them in trouble with their parents? PLEASE

Feb 24, 2011 at 4:37 pm · @Reply ·

Roy G. Biv

@Michael: Riff raff, street rat, I don’t buy that…

Yeah, the closeted teen argument is ridiculous. While I think lower content prices would encourage people to buy, it’s not like the file sharers would’ve purchased a subscription if the torrents weren’t available. They would’ve gone somewhere else, probably free amateur sites. Those fees are so inflated. That said, the studios have every right to enforce their copyrights. The file sharers knew what they were doing.

Oh, and I love the comment about CF not caring about their customers. Haha. Customers are the ones who pay.

Feb 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm · @Reply ·

Edwin

A straight “man” Randazza, profiting through the extortion of gay people. Pay up or you will be outed.

What a messed up world we are living in.

This story is huge, way bigger than people think right now. It will explode very soon.

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:00 pm · @Reply ·

TheRealAdam

Porn is stupid and lame, anyway.

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:13 pm · @Reply ·

Paul

@Michael: Even one teenager hurt by being outed by this lawsuit is too much. This situation is different than other illegal file sharing situations. Downloading certain music or movies isn’t going to out you.

It’s not the fact that they are pursuing their right to stolen material, it’s how they are disregarding the safety of certain individuals.

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:15 pm · @Reply ·

Charlie

I don’t think we can paint Corbin Fischer as a brutal murderer of gay teens. I’ve never liked that site but it’s a business that has to control the rate at which people are improperly using their videos.

If I were their publicist I would need to do some heavy drinking right now because the comments used to explain their position are not doing them any favors. The made up math explanation doesn’t help. Why does he think only half of gay teens are closeted? That’s a bit low and it hurts his stance in terms of “We’ve done adequate research.”

But internet piracy is something these companies have to take very seriously. I don’t know how much it will hurt their business; if I were paying monthly fees for that site I’d be very angry at anyone getting it for free.

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:18 pm · @Reply ·

PoopyJoe

To all the “It’s the law!” and “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time!” people, remember, these are people’s lives. While it’s not ok to break the law, it’s not worth risking the chance of pushing people to the point of suicide. Not when Corbin Fisher could be handling this situation a lot better. They could be going after their worst offenders. The people who are their own members who are spreading their videos to tube and torrent sites. Also, other porn studios are exploring other methods of marketing their videos to encourage people to pay and avoid law suits all together.

Corbin Fisher is simply handling this all wrong.

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:26 pm · @Reply ·

PoopyJoe

@Charlie: Charlie, it’s Corbin Fisher’s paying members who are putting it out their for free. How do you think people get it. Also, it’s his paying members who sell passwords so that people can get in for free. ALL of this comes down to Corbin Fisher’s own members who are responsible for ALL of this. He should be targeting them and them alone.

@Francis: Um… they aren’t customers. They’re people who knowingly steal from them.

Do you think we should just not EVER stop kids from comiting crimes because mommy might me mad at Jr?

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:34 pm · @Reply ·

B

The lawyer allegedly said, “. But, I don’t have a degree in math… if you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of a negative event, and there are 500 potential subjects, what is the percentage chance of a negative event?”

Wrong question: he said there is a 1 in 100,000 chance of something bad happening and there are 40,000 individuals with whom they want to try this experiment.

40000/100000 is 0.4 so you can use Poisson’s theorem to estimate the probability of various outcomes. If you set a=0.4, then the probability that k individuals will have a negative reaction is

P(k) = exp(-a)(a^k)/(k!) where ‘^’ denotes exponentiation.

The chance of anything bad happening to one or more individuals is 1 – P(0), which comes out to 33%.

If the lawyer wants to discount this risk as “negligible”, then he should have no problem playing Russian roulette as the chance of killing oneself in that “game” (played once) is less than 33% – a mere 1 out of 6 (17%).

If you want to compute P(100), you are better off using the approximation Poisson’s theorem gives (it is very close) than the exact value – that will save you a lot of time/effort.

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:40 pm · @Reply ·

Diz

This still seems like a lot of hot air to me. There’s no way this could ever be profitable for CF, seems they would actually lose money. But, I guess if they go bankrupt it would be their own faults.
Glad I’ve never found any guy on that site attractive though. I prefer slightly older and manlier.

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:45 pm · @Reply ·

PoopyJoe

@jasun mark: How about stopping kids from stealing by making it impossible for them to steal by stopping your damn members from sharing their content for free to torrent and tube sites?

Feb 24, 2011 at 5:55 pm · @Reply ·

Charlie

@jasun mark: I was actually wondering the same thing. Do we not prosecute underage kids who go into gay bars?

And if it’s all CF’s paying users fault as Poopy seems to claim then maybe focus your ire at them for providing gay porn to teenagers.

Most of the suicides I have read about seem to be tied into prolonged, merciless bullying or the one case where a young guy’s jerk roommates put videos of him on the web.

Feb 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm · @Reply ·

Mr. Enemabag Jones

Apparently Marc Randazza likes to sexually harrass CF models. Here’s a link where a former model appears to be a vitim of a CF lawsuit, simply because he wouldn’t fuck Randazza:

At this point, since my agent had not acted in my favor, I flew out San Diego, CA to meet with Marc Randazza, said website’s attorney. We set up an appointment for 10am. Around 9:30am Randazza asked me if the meeting could be rescheduled to noon. He told me he would take me out to lunch and we could discuss the situation. However, my schedule did not allow us to meet at his requested time. Although I was prepared to discuss other options, Randazza assumed that I was still “fooling around with him,” and refused to discuss any further settlement.

@PoopyJoe: So… they wouldn’t steal if it wasn’t there to steal so it’s therefore OK to steal?

that’s what you’re saying?

Feb 24, 2011 at 6:06 pm · @Reply ·

justiceontherocks

Gee. A porn company and its lawyer acting sleazy. What a shock. It used to be mob run. Maybe it still is.

Feb 24, 2011 at 6:08 pm · @Reply ·

Michael

@Paul: Please! It’s Porn! What’s your argument – if these teens can’t download porn, or if they get caught with it, they run the risk of suicide? That’s a really confused kid. Since when did you ever equate the porn industry with public service? Just ridiculous.

People have been file sharing since the internet was capable of doing it. Porn, music, movies, whatever. I think if there were real ways to stop it, it would be done by now. It just isn’t worth even ONE potential ruined life for this company to do this. And these statements are outrageously flippant. We are talking about LIVES here.

I do disagree with file sharing, but the way they are going about this and the potential consequences are disturbing.

@Edwin: How much I make is none of your business but my blog is free to view and doesn’t charge any membership fee.

Feb 24, 2011 at 6:48 pm · @Reply ·

Palto

You would think CF would give a stern warning across all the gay media before pulling this retroactive suing bullshit. Boycot these MOFOs at all costs.

Feb 24, 2011 at 6:53 pm · @Reply ·

Squeaky

What a bunch of phony drama queens you are!

I was actually persuaded by your first article, but you way overplayed your hand here. Although the response by the lawyer might be a bit salty for my polite tastes (he should have his mouth washed with soap!) after reading that, it seems very clear that Corbin Fisher took all these concerns to heart. And you queens can’t do anything more than throw a hissy fit completely unable to admit that you were wrong!

You were wrong, wrong, wrong. They seem very willing to care about problems this could cause, and they took it to heart. You’re the ones who are wrong here.

@Edwin: Well, it’s not. Because I don’t have a “monetary stake in this sort of thing.” Like I said, my blog is free to read. There is no membership fee.

Feb 24, 2011 at 7:37 pm · @Reply ·

Simon [Different person #1 using similar name]

I agree with the lawyer about one thing, he does not have a degree in math. When he tries to “logically” work his way through the demographics of the defendants, he considers whether they’re closeted TWICE. Unless there’s some special kind of double-closeted gay teenager I haven’t heard of…

Feb 24, 2011 at 7:38 pm · @Reply ·

LukeJoe

Corbin Fisher was founded by a guy with an alias, even the Wikipedia page still reads, “The founder of Corbin Fisher, who goes by the same name as an alias, previously held jobs including police officer and human resources manager.” This is a guy still trying to keep his own private life private. How hard could it be to get his real life personal information and publish it?

Feb 24, 2011 at 7:42 pm · @Reply ·

David

Is this Queerty? This post was cogent and insightful. It actually contained useful analysis. Let us hope that this becomes a trend at Queerty.

There is a real question as to whether the damages allowed in these suits are constitutional. CF loses perhaps $20 on an illegally downloaded video, but the copyright statute lets it sue for damages ranging from $750 to $150,000. Even the minimum award is 37 times the actual damage.

Plaintiffs like CF are able to use these astronomical numbers to intimidate their targets into settling. These large awards are allowed in order to punish and deter infringers, but there is a constitutional limit on how high this kind of damages award can go. And 37X – 7500X the actual loss is way over the top.

Feb 24, 2011 at 7:47 pm · @Reply ·

Charlie

@David: CF would lose $20 EVERY time someone viewed the video without paying. Do you think most people share videos to only one individual? If You take a video that CF expects to be paid $20 for and you give it for free to 100 people then $2,000 worth of video watching has taken place without the funds going to the copyright holder.

@Shannon1981: It isn’t necessarily that it isn’t worth it. The bottom line is that an attempt to sue this many people is impossible. There’s already a legal history of file sharing, but in that entire history, companies were powerless against individual people. In that entire history, the suing companies went after the services, not the people. Not only because it, logically, is the correct course of action (stop the source, you stop the users), but because it is just too damn difficult and expensive and time consuming to file that many charges in that many palces against that many people who aren’t even identified. If Corbin Fisher doesn’t realize this (and if this is an actual attempt to sue people), they are going to crash and burn extremely hard.

@Steve: IDK HOW they want to go about this, but if it means outed closeted teens I am against it. Too many instances of people being outed turn out disastrous. Its also a sore spot with me, because for a *sort* of similar reason I Was outed when was 14, and attempted suicide as a result. I know the suicides are a real possibility, and not just people whining as many would like to think.

Do a little search on it on the web. It’s in a very upscale neighborhood, and in an area that has only Republican representatives. Which means that their neighbors would find it interesting to know that they have a sleazy porn studio next door.

San Diego address is the offices.

Either way, there is a rumor that one of the guys who is getting targeted by Corbin Fisher will organize a picket (with the heterosexual, closeted models’ faces printed on them)and alert the media.

Feb 24, 2011 at 10:23 pm · @Reply ·

Mr. Enemabag Jones

This article talks about how CF began life in Florida, and is building a new facility in Las Vegas, rather than stay in Florida.

Vegas is not only closer to San Diego–their head quaters–but is also a very expensive place to build, and operate in. I wonder if the timing of these lawsuits has anything to do with CF needing money to expand.

The new, state-of-the-art facility will allow the company considerably more physical space to accommodate Corbin Fisher’s rapidly-expanding operations. Having outgrown its previous Florida facility, the company recently was faced with a choice of finding a new facility in Florida, or find a more favorable business climate in Las Vegas, the decision to locate production and post-production closer to the company’s existing San Diego headquarters made logistical sense.

“We’re extremely excited and looking forward to building a custom, mega-facility that will accommodate our current business needs and future business plans. We see this facility as being an industry leader in production and post-production on the level of a major film studio.”

Jason Gibson, CEO of Corbin Fisher

The company is currently building out the new mega-facility, but will immediately begin production operation in a temporary site in Las Vegas.

Feb 24, 2011 at 10:29 pm · @Reply ·

interesting

I have a feeling most the people who downloaded a Cf video didn’t think about it as “stealing”, and they never would have joined CF in the first place, so CF is not technically “losing money” from random torrent down loaders. I think they’ve made their point that they don’t want people downloading, so this whole “anmesty” thing is sad and they should start prevention methods instead of these guerrilla tactics. Oh well…. I was a paid member but definitely canceling now. This is gonna be an interesting/possibly devastating next couple of weeks for America. Hopefully they reconsider.

he is going to sue them for $150,000 each with equals to $5.2billion, which he would never earn any other way. I guess the fake str8 boys don’t know how to play str8.. sells must be down, online subscribers must be down as well.

However the Lawyer if he charge 35% will get .1.8 billion.. then again when you pay these so-called str8 guys $XXX,XXX per project, no wonder you get your lawyer to find a new cash cow for your business

Wow, I am so glad that some “thieving” gay teens could face humiliation or worse to get “busted” for “stealing” some crappy porn content, while crooks who stole billions in the market meltdown in 2008 received no punishment at all!

I’m especially proud of the reactions of some of you towards those kids’ “need to pay for their theft.” Very big of you guys!

/sarcasm

Feb 24, 2011 at 11:23 pm · @Reply ·

Adam [Different person #1 using similar name]

I actually do have PhD in mathematics, and so out of curiosity I crunched some numbers:

According to various sources, 10 out of every 100,000 teens will commit suicide. So the chance of dying by suicide is .01%. LGBT youth are 2-3 times more likely to commit suicide. Let’s say they are twice as likely to do so, and then playing around with conditional probabilities tells us that a gay teen has 2*.01/(1+P(G))% chance of dying by suicide, where P(G) is the percentage of the population that is gay. Using P(G) = 5% yields .019% chance of death.

Of the 40,000 people sued by CF, let’s say that 1/6 is a gay teen, for a total of 6,666. Now for the tricky part: let’s suppose that of these teens, 2/3 come from supportive families, and 1/3 do not. So we ignore the 2/3 and suppose that the other 1/3 is ‘triggered’ to become potentially suicidal at the previously calculated rate of .019%. This is a reasonable, possibly even conservative, way of looking at the numbers, I do believe.

So we have 2,222 gay teens with a suicide rate of .019%. The chance that no one of these teens dies is calculated by using the ‘binomial distribution’, a result that is probably unknown to most people not acquainted with probability. Simply put, the chance of any given teen living equals (1-.00019) and so the chance of them all living equals (1-.00019)^2222 = 66%.

Many people, with the CF representative undoubtedly among them, have terrible intuition when it comes to probability. For instance, it is a mathematical fact that if you have 23 people in a room then there is 50% chance that at least two people have the same birthday; if 57 people are in the room there is a 99% chance that at least two people have the same birthday. This is why you really do have to crunch the numbers.

In conclusion, according to my analysis, there is a 1/3 chance that a teen will commit suicide at least in part because of being exposed by CF. I will caution that this ‘estimate’ should be taken with a grain of salt.

@ $34 per month for 12 months they lost $408 per defendant.
With 40,000 Defendants = $16,320,000

So no, that’s far from a lot.

Feb 25, 2011 at 12:36 am · @Reply ·

Kade Madison

It amazes me that you are siding with illegally obtaining merchandise from Corbin Fisher. That is what it amounts too. It’s not sharing. It’s basically someone stealing a case of dvd’s and leaving them on the sidewalk for everyone to take. And, too use the poor excuse of “oh, why sue, they might be poor closeted teens” you are condoning stealing. Very poor taste. In fact, quite idiotic.

Feb 25, 2011 at 12:38 am · @Reply ·

B

Re No. 71 – like Adam, I also did the calculation (a bit differently) and got the same number (33%), but for some reason QUEERTY refused to print it earlier today. Don’t know why. I took the lawyer’s 1/100000 chance and computed the chance of nobody reacting negatively out of 40000 lawsuits, and subtracted that probability from 1.

Feb 25, 2011 at 12:40 am · @Reply ·

bj85

Aw Queerty still soaking up the attention they’re getting lol.

Yet the latest in a long string of Queerty using gay teen suicide to score themselves attention and traffic, actually!

And look at all you people saying “porn is free! steal it steal it steal it!” then trying to blame someone else for kids getting caught doing it. I suppose that makes you guys accessories to murder? o.O

BTW just a casual search through Queerty’s posts on suicide will show ya how much they just love getting attention over the issue.

Maybe they should follow their own advice from their Jan 24 2011 post about it, in which they chastise others for playing the gay teen suicide card and say bloggers are too quick to raise the issue.

That’s after Queerty was way too quick to blame suicide for the death of a teenager in their Jan 18 2011 post about it.

Doing no different here. Queerty – The Boy Who Cried “Suicide!”.

Perhaps they should heed their own words from that Jan 24 piece…

“Is the queer press so desperate for youthful victims in this “It Gets Better” age that we’re willing to make a martyr out a dead gay teen without first confirming how he actually died?”

and

“Reporting such misinformation discredit the gay blogosphere and set us up for being accused of using dead kids to score political points—truly a massive fail on our parts.”

Using dead kids to score political points. Sounds familiar. What is this, 3 posts and counting?

Feb 25, 2011 at 1:45 am · @Reply ·

bj85

Hm actually on Jan 14 2011 Queerty posts an article about “suicide contagion” in which the phenomenon of blog posts and articles about teen suicides might actually contribute to another teenager committing suicide as well.

And yet, since posting that article, Queerty has posted a whole bunch of pieces about gay teen suicides. They even callously used the sarcastic title “Don’t Retweet This Blog Post Or You’ll Teach A Kid To Kill Himself” for that post.

“we need to make sure that we aren’t putting our stamp of approval on these actions, nor recommending suicide as a reasonable out.” Queerty says at the end of that Jan 14 piece.

Of course, giving kids the idea to commit suicide in response to being outed and making sure you blame someone else for that suicide and make sure they know it’s not their fault at all and instead the big bad corporation did it isn’t putting a stamp of approval on it at all.

Feb 25, 2011 at 1:59 am · @Reply ·

Kev C

The reality is that porn copyright cases such as this one, use the threat of exposure and embarrasment as a way to gain a settlement. The chances of winning in court are growing smaller, as more states dismiss these types of mass copyright lawsuits. So they rely on exposing names … as a type of blackmail.

Feb 25, 2011 at 2:00 am · @Reply ·

Prezzin

Can you believe this? Look at what this ASSHOLE wrote (corbin fisher’s “lawyer”)

As a long-time CF subscriber, I hope every person reading this that has stolen their content gets what is coming to them. You know who you are. I wouldn’t shoplift from Macy’s and then try to orchestrate a campaign amongst my fellow shoplifters so that if their Loss Prevention does their job and catches me red-handed, that they are somehow deemed at fault for my shady & illegal behavior.

It is shameful AND PURE BULLSHIT to see people trying to hide behind a proverbial suicidal gay teen to justify their criminal behavior. And that is all it is. Those of you who have watched their videos and not paid for them, and now are trying to justify in your warped minds that it is okay and you are somehow in the right, are complete chickenshit and hopefully will be caught – in fact, 40,000 is a LOT of IP addresses.

I gather that many of the hysterical posters in this thread are trying to drive business away from CF (or at least get them to back off from following through on the promised wave of Federal lawsuits), but given how CF consistently does things differently, and in a better way, in my opinion, I think postings like these will only make them even more determined. I’m confident of it.

They keep producing great content — Aiden & Cain today was superb. I’ll keep paying for it, and I’ll also stay tuned as they make good on their promise to those on their list to come after them. If/when that time comes, their unprecedented amnesty offer will seem pretty sweet in hindsight.

Feb 25, 2011 at 2:59 am · @Reply ·

Sweyn

The comment above has to be meant for laughs.. right?

Anyways, the amnesty agreement has been posted online in like 20+ places.

Most importantly it was posted on a legal forum and more or less laughed at by those who read it, some had a hard time believing a competent lawyer drew it up. No lawyer would advise anyone to sign it. You relinquish all your rights. It’s not just a hand over $1900 and this is forgotten. You’d have to say that you owe them $25,000 and it is filled with a laundry list of things that will leave you in debt to CF and under their thumb in many ways.

When these cases are brought, lawyers will tear them to shreds, anyone in fear should sleep easy.

“I’m a long time subscriber to CF, they do things better than anyone, don’t try and drive away customers, like the people at CF I don’t give a fuck about closeted gay kids killing themselves either – ergo, CF’s subscribers are just as much a bunch of cold and heartless cunts as the company themselves… so don’t blame the company.”

If CF are going to get people to write comments here, might I suggest they be a bit more subtle in future.
Jesus, what a bunch of assholes.

Feb 25, 2011 at 3:33 am · @Reply ·

bj85

Queerty knows articles about gay teen suicide can contribute to more suicides through “suicide contagion”, yet still posts articles about suicides. Are they just as bad as CF? Worse? Willing to acknowledge how their articles could have led to a suicide at all? hrm

Feb 25, 2011 at 4:08 am · @Reply ·

James

I dont understand the outrage here… Theft of IP is still theft and if gay little johny doesnt want to be outed he shouldn’t steal porn. When I was 16 I shoplifted a playgirl, this was when I came to terms with the fact that I was gay. I stayed in the closet for a few more years, but the fact that I was willing to risk being caught for stealing a magazine to look at naked men sealed it for me that I was gay.

If I had been caught should the store owner just let me go lest I kill myself?

I suffer from depression now, what exactly can I get away with when it comes to potientially causing suicidal thoughts? this could come quite handy to me should I become perverse enough to manipulate people in this way…

Even though there is no way to prevent all teens from being exposed to any porn, I do believe that a minor should be limited in exposeur to it. Nevermind that these kids are stealing it, they shouldnt be watching it. The priorities in this story and responses are all twisted.

I could go on but I fear this post is too long already

Feb 25, 2011 at 4:16 am · @Reply ·

John L

@Sweyn: Yes, it was meant for your personal enjoyment. hahahahaha. Glad to be of service. And thanks for giving all of us permission to sleep easy tonight — it simply wouldn’t have been possible without your blessing.

Feb 25, 2011 at 4:25 am · @Reply ·

skzip888

Amateur porn relies so much on subscription fees because the quality is so inconsistent. Subscribe to see the rest of that one hot preview and you get nothing but a month’s access to two weeks of watchable porn and a bunch of skinny, fetish-specific awkwardness.

Feb 25, 2011 at 5:33 am · @Reply ·

Pip

Well they’ve certainly proven the stereotype that the porn industry is a scum bucket for only the most classless of low lifes.

Feb 25, 2011 at 5:53 am · @Reply ·

matt

Oh come on.. whatever, If someone steals, they “should assume” a chance of getting caught and eventually having to pay the piper/fie. Just cause some closeted gay guy is the crook does not make it OK to be a crook… if this closeted gay guy broke into our house and stole our porn, gay collection of Madona or Britney or even our check book and credit cards to buy more porn we would want him ass prosocuted… crook = crook; NO DIFFERENCE.

Feb 25, 2011 at 6:26 am · @Reply ·

Nathan

The business has a right to defend its intellectual property. If you won’t come out of the closet, at least have the decency not to insult everyone and yourself by living a double life. Either play it straight in your closet of shame all the time, or quit being an Uncle Tomming coward and come out. I pirate pretty much everything but you won’t see me whining when I get a cease and desist letter.

Feb 25, 2011 at 6:57 am · @Reply ·

Caleb

Michael, John L and James have collectively hit the nail on the head. These people know that what they are doing is illegal. Period. Case closed.

By the way, offering the offending defendants the opportunity to lie about the content they downloaded as part of a settlement offer does not in any way offend the justice system. Corbin’s attorneys just cannot do that in court. I think their approach is fair and reasonable: If you pay for what you downloaded or shared before we are forced to seek legal action, then no one has to know what you stole. If you force us to go to court, all bets are off.

Feb 25, 2011 at 8:29 am · @Reply ·

Francis

A lot of you are fucking heartless. Uh duh, what these kids did is wrong obviously. No-one is saying that. However, what is being said is that going after these kids, and maliciously and intentionally targeting them, trying to extort money from them, is not acceptable at all. The bottom line is, lives come ahead of moralistic BS or money. LIVES, the LIVES of children/teens come first. And I’m not stupid enough to think all of them knew exactly what they were doing either. I don’t think all of them said “well, I’m going to do this, even though I know it’s wrong, hahahaha.” To basically have this flippant, nonchalant attitude about kids being potentially forced out of the closet, into potentially negative situations, is mind-blowingly insensitive. Sorry everyone, but not all kids are in situations where they feel comfortable being out and proud (although they need to get to that point and love themselves regardless of extra bullshit) and many kids in the closet do wild things without thinking. But they shouldn’t have their lives potentially ruined for it. It’s wrong and it’s offensive.

Oh give it a rest, already. They broke the law, and now all of a sudden everyone is going to scream “what about the children” because the company which was wronged has stated there will be consequences.

You don’t want to be outed, there’s an easy answer. Don’t break the law.

Feb 25, 2011 at 9:23 am · @Reply ·

Connie

Have you ever read about pharmaceutical companies crunching the numbers to see how many people may be harmed by their drug, how much it would cost to settle any lawsuits that stem from that, vs. how much money they stand to make by selling the drug anyway? Corbin Fisher’s math has that exact feel to it. How many kids might be harmed vs. how much they stand to make anyway.

Feb 25, 2011 at 9:32 am · @Reply ·

Mr. Enemabag Jones

All you bitches defending Corbin Fisher, would be screeching like banshees if a straight company called gay teens “little thieving shits”, or threatened to out closeted teens.

Just because you pathetic losers were stupid enough to pay a MONTHLY fee to watch dull hets have boring sex, doesn’t mean closeted teens should be made to suffer because they downloaded the same boring porn on the DL–so to speak.

Fuck Corbin Fisher, fuck Marc Randazza, and fuck you all defending them. I really wish I had downloaded CF videos, just so I could have my lawyer tell those punks to go fuck themselves.

These assholes are trading on fear, and shame to make money. They need to be exposed, and have their privacy ripped from them. I’m sure Brian Lowderman’s father Floyd, and mother Virginia and very proud that their son pays dumb straight guys a few hundred dollars to have unprotected sex on film.

As far as CF claiming to donate thousands of dollars, Bananaguide contacted Equality Florida, and two people told them that they never received anything from CF.

Like Jack E. Jett wrote, We are our own worst enemy.

And if that doesn’t get your blood boiling, Lowderman lists his political persuasion as “Independent”. So you know he’s a right wing, homocon scumbag.

Feb 25, 2011 at 9:57 am · @Reply ·

Mr. Enemabag Jones

All you bitches defending Corbin Fisher, would be screeching like banshees if a straight company called gay teens “little thieving shits”, or threatened to out closeted teens.

Just because you pathetic losers were stupid enough to pay a MONTHLY fee to watch dull hets have boring sex, doesn’t mean closeted teens should be made to suffer because they downloaded the same boring porn on the DL–so to speak.

Fuck Corbin Fisher, fuck Marc Randazza, and fuck you all defending them. I really wish I had downloaded CF videos, just so I could have my lawyer tell those punks to go fuck themselves.

These assholes are trading on fear, and shame to make money. They need to be exposed, and have their privacy ripped from them. I’m sure Brian Lowderman’s father Floyd, and mother Virginia and very proud that their son pays dumb straight guys a few hundred dollars to have unprotected sex on film.

As far as CF claiming to donate thousands of dollars, Bananaguide contacted Equality Florida, and two people told them that they never received anything from CF.

Like Jack E. Jett wrote, We are our own worst enemy.

And if that doesn’t get your blood boiling, Lowderman lists his political persuasion as “Independent”. So you know he’s a right wing, homocon scumbag.

Feb 25, 2011 at 9:58 am · @Reply ·

Max Campbell

Corbin Fisher all does absolutely truly! They work for profit extraction. Anybody wouldn’t like to work free of charge. Therefore close your stupid mouths, Internet hamsters!

Feb 25, 2011 at 10:26 am · @Reply ·

justiceontherocks

@Mr. Enemabag Jones: CF is a straight company calling gay teens “thieving little shits.” There’s no evidence that anyone gay has any ownership interest in it.

The site frequently makes reference to its “hot straight studs” being broken in to gay sex. I guess the idea is that the straight boys are the hot ones and we should all lust after them. It’s pathetic.

Of course their “studs” are neither hot nor straight. But what do you expect from low rent con artists like these.

Feb 25, 2011 at 10:33 am · @Reply ·

Max Campbell

Justiceonthecrap, do you think that porn studios must release their production free?

Feb 25, 2011 at 10:38 am · @Reply ·

Max Campbell

Also I want to remind that studio Corbin Fisher has rendered the large monetary help of the gay organization from Florida.

Feb 25, 2011 at 10:43 am · @Reply ·

Max Campbell

Do you want to stop gay teen suicides? Ok, make male bisexuality, male homosexual behaviour as mainstream part, ordinary thing!
After all doesn’t come to mind to the maidens representing “female bisexuality” to commit suicide because of it!
Why? Because porn industry make female homosexual behaviour free.
In Ancient World all guys were BI and homophobia wasn’t!

CF is a straight company calling gay teens “thieving little shits.” There’s no evidence that anyone gay has any ownership interest in it.

I’m going to have to take your word for it, Justice, since I don’t know anything about CF, save for what I’ve read online. Some sites have made it appear it’s a gay owned and operated company.

I guess the idea is that the straight boys are the hot ones and we should all lust after them. It’s pathetic.

Agreed. That’s one of the major reasons I stopped buying porn from major studios.

A few sites I’ve read about CF, had former models stating that CF treats their openly gay models like shit.

But what do you expect from low rent con artists like these.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

Feb 25, 2011 at 11:16 am · @Reply ·

Salvator

The word “stealing” and “thieves” are so over dramatic. Most people in this day and age consider what’s on the internet fair game. If you walk by a street corner and a guy says “hey do you want this $10 bill” most people would take it without thinking about whether it was stolen or not. But that doesn’t mean they would rob a bank or hack into CF and steal videos. I agree that maybe something should be done to mass up loaders of material and maybe to heavy downloaders as well. But the numbers they equate with their videos and how much they are losing is ludicrous.

Feb 25, 2011 at 11:42 am · @Reply ·

Sweyn

*******DO NOT SIGN THE AMNESTY AGREEMENT*******

They are trying to woo you in with false promises that all will be well when signed, it’s nothing more than a contract with the devil.

The Amnesty was posted on a legal forum this week and more or less was laughed at by those who read it, some had a hard time believing a competent lawyer drew it up. No lawyer would advise anyone to sign it not even under the worst circumstances. You relinquish all your rights. It’s not just a hand over $1900 and this is forgotten. You’d have to say that you owe them $25,000 and it is filled with a laundry list of things that will leave you in debt to CF and under their thumb in many ways.

When these cases are brought, lawyers will tear them to shreds, anyone in fear should calm down and be patient. The law is sitting and waiting to work for you, but it cannot when you sign away your life in the faux amnesty.

Feb 25, 2011 at 12:11 pm · @Reply ·

Josh

If u live in the States, STOP downloading their sh!t. Period! Why risk? So many other studios out there.. and then xtube, pornhub… CF crap is not worth the risk!

Feb 25, 2011 at 12:25 pm · @Reply ·

Rodney

all this vitriol might be better directed towards volunteering or donating to the trevor project if queerty and other posters are truly that concerned.

Feb 25, 2011 at 12:46 pm · @Reply ·

Max Campbell

Josh, fuck you!! Nobody wouldn’t like to work free of charge.

Feb 25, 2011 at 12:46 pm · @Reply ·

bj85

@Rodney:
Rodney… good point. I can’t speak for those commenting, and can’t speak for Queerty, but I nonetheless get the impression all Queerty is generally interested in is getting attention and traffic.

I’ve pointed out numerous instances in which they’ve contradicted themselves on their own self-professed concern for gay teens. They post an article about “suicide contagion” (complete with a sarcastic title), and then go about disregarding everything experts and the CDC recommend in how to report on suicides without potentially encouraging others to commit “copycat suicide”. They post an erroneous and sensationalist article about a particular teen suicide based on false information, only to have it revealed the individual in question didn’t actually commit suicide at all. Their “my bad” in response to that? An article accusing other bloggers and the gay media of being too quick to jump to conclusions and giving off barely a hint of their own role in perpetuating the spread of the false story.

And now they come about with all this nonsense – playing the “oh, the kids!” card when their own site is jampacked full of posts and pieces that could very well put teens at risk of suicide contagion.

They’re only concerned about the kids in so much as they’re able to post dramatic stories about them and win some attention. The slightest, real concern would have them focus a bit more on introspection with themselves, vs. simple accusation of others.

Feb 25, 2011 at 1:06 pm · @Reply ·

Pete

Rodney, I already DO volunteer with teens and donate to gay causes. That does nothing to help the specific kids that may be harmed by CF’s actions. All I can do for them is try to make CF aware of the dangers of their planned lawsuits, and I’m not going to stay silent on this matter. If the worst does occur because of these lawsuits, CF will not be able to say “We had no idea this could happen”.

I’d say Queerty is pretty disgusting when it comes to their faux concern for gay teens.

I’m sorry, Enembag. I didn’t realize the point of a comments section was to have everyone kiss the author’s behind and yell, “Huzzah! Huzzah!”. If you don’t like what I’m writing, skip over my comments!

Queerty is the one that brought up harm to teens in this, accused another of causing it, while ignoring their own practices and behaviors that pose very real risks to teens. It’s worth pointing out.

No matter what you say, no matter how you twist things, no matter how hard you try and fight. It will end poorly for the people and company you are involved with.

Feb 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm · @Reply ·

Max Campbell

Do you want to stop gay teen suicides? Ok, make male bisexuality, male homosexual behaviour as mainstream part, ordinary thing!
Porn-studios do exist for receiving profits and they are not obliged to realize their own production free of charge. All experiments with Communism meanwhile were not successful!

@Kade Madison: “It’s basically someone stealing a case of dvd’s and leaving them on the sidewalk for everyone to take.”

False. It’s buying a stack of DVDs (since it’s paying members of CF who are then sharing the material with others) + then leaving copies you’ve made of the DVDs out for others to watch.

Feb 25, 2011 at 3:30 pm · @Reply ·

hephaestion

I’m mad as hell at CorbinFisher for planning to tie up our country’s courts with something as silly as internet porn.

And the thought that this could cause kids lives to be ruined or ended makes me want to boycott them and put them out of business.
Do they never consider that the consequences of suing thousands of gay kids could be far, far worse to them than copying their silly videos?

Feb 25, 2011 at 3:45 pm · @Reply ·

hephaestion

I’m mad as hell at CorbinFisher for planning to tie up our country’s courts with something as silly as internet porn.

And the thought that this could cause kids lives to be ruined or ended makes me want to boycott them and put them out of business.
Do they never consider that the consequences of suing thousands of gay kids could be far, far worse to them than copying their silly videos is?

Feb 25, 2011 at 3:45 pm · @Reply ·

justiceontherocks

@hephaestion: They aren’t going to sue 40,000 people. The filing and service fees alone would be around $6 million. They aren’t even going to sue 40. They’ll file cases against maybe half a dozen people, hope the word gets out that they’re doing it, and trust that solves the problem.

I guess you ignored it the first time I posted it, but here it is again.

On Jan 14 2011 Queerty posts an article about “suicide contagion” in which the phenomenon of blog posts and articles about teen suicides might actually contribute to another teenager committing suicide as well.

And yet, since posting that article, Queerty has posted a whole bunch of pieces about gay teen suicides. They even callously used the sarcastic title “Don’t Retweet This Blog Post Or You’ll Teach A Kid To Kill Himself” for that post. Following that post, they made another about a teenager who committed suicide (without using the CDC’s recommended guidelines). They then followed that up with yet ANOTHER post about a teenager’s suicide (and, in this one, it turned out they were wrong! They erroneously jumped to conclusions about that suicide when it turned out the teenager died of a heart condition instead).

“we need to make sure that we aren’t putting our stamp of approval on these actions, nor recommending suicide as a reasonable out.” Queerty says at the end of that Jan 14 piece.

Of course, giving kids the idea to commit suicide in response to being outed and making sure you blame someone else for that suicide and make sure they know it’s not their fault at all and instead the big bad corporation did it isn’t putting a stamp of approval on it at all, is it?

Suicide contagion is a very real phenomenon. The Centers for Disease Control even has guidelines on how best to report suicides so as not to encourage other teens to copy the act. Queerty was aware of the phenomenon (their sarcastically-titled post on Jan 14 was all about it) and those guidelines. They posted em. And yet mere days after that post, they made another about a teen’s suicide that did not follow the guidelines. They continued that with yet another post about a teen suicide (that was actually not a suicide… so Queerty just overreacted to the news of a gay teen’s death and posted a false, erroneous article that was later disproven).

Many experts have discussed the real risk of suicide contagion. Queerty quotes it in that Jan 14th piece.

Each of their posts reporting suicides ran the risk of creating or contributing to a suicide contagion event. A “suicide cluster”, as they are often called.

Again, Queerty admitted the risk on Jan 14, yet continued to post the kinds of pieces the risk comes from.

So I guess they’ll blame others for creating such risks, while totally disregarding their own actions that have done the same.

So, dictate? Certainly not. Queerty can post what they want. But I think it’s fair to point out their own hypocrisy in the comments section provided. They were plainly aware of the suicide contagion phenomenon so far as to make a sarcastically-titled post about it. Within a week they’d followed that up with posts that completely disregarded the CDC’s recommendations on how to avoid putting vulnerable young people at risk when reporting on suicides.

They can post what they want and say what they want. But readers deserve the opportunity to be aware of their hypocrisy and the insincerity behind their faux concern.

No. 90 · James wrote, “I dont understand the outrage here… Theft of IP is still theft and if gay little johny doesnt want to be outed he shouldn’t steal porn.”

But “gay little johny” is not stealing anything – he’s obtaining copyrighted material from a site or person who is violating the DMCA. The DMCA is widely viewed as a disaster that has lead to a number of abuses. You can read about those at

It is not even clear if “gay little johny” is guilty of receiving or possessing stolen property, since no physical object traded hands. Think of it this way – if you buy a book at a discount store and it turns out that the book was printed by a “pirate” company that ignores copyright laws, have you committed a crime? Should you be charged with a copyright violation when you didn’t copy anything?

So you have an issue with a blog that reports on queer issues, reporting on an issue that may effect gay teens? So in your myopic world view, rather than Queerty inform readers of this, they should have ignored it?

They even callously used the sarcastic title “Don’t Retweet This Blog Post Or You’ll Teach A Kid To Kill Himself” for that post.

This post, and the one you cited on January 14 are the same article.

That you would claim Queerty was careless in posting about teen suicide is absurd. Considering this appeared in the January 14 posting:

It’s something we’ve discussed on the site, and in meetings behind the scenes, a number of times.

Demonstrates that Queerty has been looking at this issue. For you to claim Queerty wantonly posts articles about teen suicide without care or concern is ridiculous. They wrote this:

As in, we need to make sure that we aren’t putting our stamp of approval on these actions, nor recommending suicide as a reasonable out.

No where in an article about teen suicide, has Queerty shown approval for suicide, or recommended suicide. They have been reporting about teen suicide for years, including an article linked in the January 14 posting about eighth-grader Asher Brown; and that was back in September, 2010. In that post, they wrote this:

How is that being dismissive, or insensitive to teen suicide? How would that, in your words, “encourage a suicide”?

You’re desperately clutching at straws, and making a strawman argument.

Marc Radanzza has stated he doesn’t care if gay teens killed themselves. Then when he was called out on his bullshit, he made up statistics to defend the indefensible. And here you are defending him, and Corbin Fisher.

Of course, giving kids the idea to commit suicide in response to being outed

Where is Queerty “giving” kids the idea to commit suicide? Queerty has consistently followed the CDC suggested method of reporting teen suicide. They have NEVER once shown support for suicide.

You’re entire argument hinges on your misinterpretation of the January 14th article. Yous seem to think merely reporting about a suicide leads to suicide, when the CDC guidelines clearly show that when reporting on teen suicide, the writer must not glorify suicide as an acceptable option. Queerty has never done this, in all it’s years of reporting about suicide.

and making sure you blame someone else for that suicide and make sure they know it’s not their fault at all and instead the big bad corporation did it isn’t putting a stamp of approval on it at all, is it?

So if a gay teen is outed in a lawsuit by Corbin Fisher and Marc Randazza, it’s Queerty’s fault if that kid kills himself, because Queerty reports on teen suicide?

Suicide contagion is a very real phenomenon. The Centers for Disease Control even has guidelines on how best to report suicides so as not to encourage other teens to copy the act.

Yes they do. As reported by Queerty on January 14:

John Doe Jr., 15, of Maplewood Drive, died Friday from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. John, the son of Mary and John Doe Sr., was a sophomore at City High School. John had lived in Anytown since moving here 10 years ago from Otherville, where he was born. His funeral was held Sunday. School counselors are available for any students who wish to talk about his death. In addition to his parents, John is survived by his sister, Ann.

Queerty has never once made light of teen suicide.

You keep repeating the same shit over and over, and yet you still haven’t seen that you have it all ass backwards. You have not once been able to show where Queerty made fun of a kid who died; where Queerty suggested teens should kill themselves; where Queerty showed approval for suicide.

Queerty has shown rage, and anger at a society, that allows kids to die. They have railed against ignorant school administrators; bullies; families of bullies who dismiss the concerns of bullied kids; politicians who refuse to pass legislation that protects at risk youth. Queertry has used this blog to fight for the lives of gay kids.

And what has Corbin Fisher done? Paid stupid straight guys a few hundred dollars to fuck on camera. And what have you done? Defended them for attacking gay kids.

You don’t give a damn about whether or not gay teens kill themselves because of Corbin Fisher. All you car about is defending Marc Randazza, and Corbin Fisher.

Fuck you, fuck him, and fuck them.

Feb 25, 2011 at 7:26 pm · @Reply ·

Kev C

The suicide contagion theory for gay teens was promoted by anti-gay conservatives like Ken Trump. The experts were clueless as to why these suicides were happening, not realizing that they’d always been happening but the reporting of them had increased. To date, the theory has no basis in evidence.

The “John Doe” piece you quoted? That was the CDC’s standard format recommended as a way to report on suicides so as to avoid encouraging others to commit copycat suicide. Queerty didn’t write that. They pasted it from a CDC recommendation. And it further highlights how their own articles didn’t follow that format (especially the one in which they sensationalized one teen’s death, assumed it was a suicide, didn’t do any fact-checking or research, and it was revealed later that teen died of a heart condition).

Just because some right-wing nuts use suicide contagion, doesn’t mean it does not exist. Queerty admits it exists. They acknowledge it is real, only to disregard it.

I don’t seem to think reporting about suicide encourages it. The CDC does. Many mental health experts do. The person quoted in Queerty’s article does. Queerty seems to think they do, also. Read that Jan 14 article. They even refer to it as true.

And yet they then go on to ignore everything it says.

Queerty does not need to explicitly state they support suicide. However, simply by irresponsibly making posts about it (such as the one in which they erroneously blamed one teen’s death on suicide when in fact it was a heart condition), they risk encouraging teens to commit copycat suicides.

That’s the point. So they blame corbin fisher for initiating actions that might have the unintended consequence of harming kids.

While Queerty posts articles that might have the unintended consequence of harming kids.

Hypocrisy.

I’d say Queerty is even worse as they were AWARE of the risks (heck, they even posted about it) and yet decided to keep on making the posts regardless.

Queerty has railed against a lot of people. CF, other gay blogs and other gay media outlets (such as in the Jan 24 article about suicide). Yet they seem quite incapable of looking at themselves and seeing their own role in things.

We live in a wired world now. The option to not report information due to fear of contagion is not a viable option because kids are using facebook to write their suicide notes. The CDC and these old school experts are behind the times and no longer can control the flow of information. Silence isn’t an option.

BTW I love how you will say that the CDC and all the experts are “old school”, and thus discard what they say (even though Queerty itself acknowledged suicide contagion as legit), but you’ll let Queerty be the expert on whether there are teens at risk here, whether teens even exist in this situation, etc. Queerty and the other commenters on here who agree with you.

Further, it’s not about silence. It’s about the manner in which one delivers the message when it comes to Queerty. They posted the CDC’s recommended coverage format – and then immediately disregarded it in their own subsequent posts. They sensationalized suicide through an erroneous piece wrongly blaming a natural death on suicide. They jumped to conclusions about that death and spread false information about it.

But they can still tell others what they can and can not do based upon what they perceive to be threats to gay teens.

Feb 25, 2011 at 8:53 pm · @Reply ·

lol

Why does/did the owner of Corbin Fisher own a house with one of his models (“Dawson”)? Are the two in a relationship?

No matter what you say, no matter how you twist things, no matter how hard you try and fight. It will end poorly for the people and company you are involved with.

Feb 25, 2011 at 10:13 pm · @Reply ·

Kev C

@bj85: The CDC concludes that that reporting suicides can be beneficial if it produces discussion and recommendations. What you’re doing is trying to shoot the messenger, but all you’re doing is gunking up the screen.

Feb 25, 2011 at 10:44 pm · @Reply ·

bj85

@Kev C:
It also points out that discussion can be just has harmful, it all it does is dramatize, sensationalize, victimize, and glorify. Much like a “If you’re closeted, you should be able to do whatever you want!” argument people like you make does.

The “John Doe” piece you quoted? That was the CDC’s standard format recommended as a way to report on suicides so as to avoid encouraging others to commit copycat suicide. Queerty didn’t write that.

Please show me where I wrote that Queerty wrote that. If you’ll notice, dumbass, I wrote this:

Yes they do. As reported by Queerty on January 14:

As reported by Queerty.

(especially the one in which they sensationalized one teen’s death, assumed it was a suicide, didn’t do any fact-checking or research, and it was revealed later that teen died of a heart condition).

So in the past five years of reporting on teen deaths, you can only find one example of Queerty reporting incorrect information? The fact that Queerty corrected themselves demonstrates a level of concern, and a desire to provide correct reporting. A level of concern that Marc Randazza does not have–considering he calls gay teens “thieving little shits”.

Corbin Fisher and Marc Randazza have used nothing but name calling, and abuse when discussing gay teens.

Just because some right-wing nuts use suicide contagion, doesn’t mean it does not exist.

Please show me where I wrote that.

Queerty admits it exists. They acknowledge it is real, only to disregard it.

You haven’t been able to provide any examples where Queerty has disregarded suicide contagion. I however, can give you an example of Queerty using concern, and compassion when discussing teen death.

From December 20, 2005:

Usually we send you to funny and snarky links and stories. But sometimes we see something so powerful that even we feel like getting serious. Kenneth Morrison is a spoken word artist who wrote the poem At 13. This movie features Mr. Morrison’s dedication to his friend Devon. Devon was an African America, gay, teenager. He also took his life at the age of 13. This is powerful stuff.

However, Marc Randazza calls teen suicide “laughable”.

I don’t seem to think reporting about suicide encourages it.

Yes you do. That has been your entire argument:

Comment #78:

Yet the latest in a long string of Queerty using gay teen suicide to score themselves attention and traffic, actually!

Comment #81:

BTW just a casual search through Queerty’s posts on suicide will show ya how much they just love getting attention over the
issue.

Using dead kids to score political points. Sounds familiar. What is this, 3 posts and counting?

Comment #82:

Hm actually on Jan 14 2011 Queerty posts an article about “suicide contagion” in which the phenomenon of blog posts and
articles about teen suicides might actually contribute to another teenager committing suicide as well.

And yet, since posting that article, Queerty has posted a whole bunch of pieces about gay teen suicides.

All you’ve done is accuse Queerty of writing stories that will drive kids to kill themselves, while defending Marc Randazza, who laughs at kids killing themselves.

However, simply by irresponsibly making posts about it…they risk encouraging teens to commit copycat suicides.

Nope. That is a completely wrong interpretation of the CDC’s suggested handling of teen suicide. You are either willfully ignorant, or just stupid. Working for Marc Randazza, and Corbin Fisher could be proof of both.

So they blame corbin fisher for initiating actions that might have the unintended consequence of harming kids.

Marc Randazza has admitted that his lawsuit will make kids kill themselves. He even claims to have spoken to a “nationally-known sex therapist” about the issue. Why are you claiming Queerty will make kids kill themselves by writing about teen suicide, while you defend Marc Randazza who knows he is going to be the cause of teens deaths? Why?

While Queerty posts articles that might have the unintended consequence of harming kids.

Marc Randazza knows kids will kill themselves because of his lawsuit. He even presented the number of kids he believes will kill themselves because of his actions. Why aren’t you going after Marc Randazza, and Corbin Fisher?

Hypocrisy.

Is that what bj85 stands for? That’s what he defends.

I’d say Queerty is even worse as they were AWARE of the risks …and yet decided to keep on making the posts regardless.

Yikes.. So, Don’t talk about things, discussion can be harmful, just follow along, do nothing and wait to be told what to say and think?

Joseph Goebbels must be a hero of yours.

Feb 25, 2011 at 11:48 pm · @Reply ·

PoopyJoe

Corbin obviously has a number of employees, or one person with several names, here trying to sway public opinion.

Feb 25, 2011 at 11:54 pm · @Reply ·

Paul H.

To a concerned person who emailed CF about the issue of outing gay teens with “The actions your company are making will have extensive, damaging consequences in the months and years to come.”

Cf’s lawyer responded thusly: “We hope so. That is the point. We hope to have extensive, damaging consequences visited upon people who steal our content.”

That’s enough to put Corbin Fisher on my hate list forever. They want to crush every single person who slighted them, with no exception for closeted teens. The punishment of outing and “damaging” a potentially vulnerable gay teen is severely disproportionate to the minor crime of copyright infringment, and I am digusted that Corbin Fisher thinks it’s even remotely appropriate.

I don’t think the attorney was saying he would lie to the court. Rather, I believe he was saying that kids who wanted to go to their parents and ask for money to settle could tell their parents it was for straight porn and that he would back this up.

And while it would be difficult for teens to come up with $1,000, couldn’t the community come up with that amount for teens who are not out and have legitimate fears of violence if outed?

Is anyone working to provide a way for these kids to get legal assistance? I just passed the bar exam, and I’d be glad to help, but I’d need guidance from an attorney with more experience–and someone would have to cover out-of-pocket expenses. If you’re an attorney and you could guide me, contact me. If you’re a kid who is being pursued about the downloads and wants to talk to an attorney, contact me.

CorbinFisher is allowing underage gay teens to register and use their site?! Tsk, tsk. A talented attorney could wreak havoc. But I doubt there’s all that many underage teens paying for porn to begin with.

Feb 26, 2011 at 5:57 am · @Reply ·

lol

What would Kathi and Ronald Rasmus say if they knew what they’re little boy (Andrew/Dawson) was up to?
Downloading content illegally is…illegal…but a lot of information about Brian Lowderman and his models has begun to leak out as people turn the spotlight on Corbin Fisher. I wonder if the scrutiny they’re all facing is worth the aggressive tactics.

Feb 26, 2011 at 8:28 am · @Reply ·

TJ Parker

Come one, Queerty: stop giving them a platform from which to do their extortion.

Corbin Fisher: “subscribe to a porn site” is a losing business model.

Feb 26, 2011 at 12:46 pm · @Reply ·

Troy

No, fuck you, Mr. Enemabag Jones.

Feb 26, 2011 at 2:06 pm · @Reply ·

Nine

I guess if you don’t break copyrights you have no reason to worry about any of this. Boo hoo.

The legal slang is ‘jackpot judgment’. Judges are beginning to take an increasingly dim view of plaintiffs who abuse judicial process for personal financial gain. Too many people are going to McDonald’s just to spill coffee on their laps.

The legal slang is ‘jackpot judgment’. Judges are taking an increasingly dim view of plaintiffs who abuse judicial process for personal financial gain. Too many people are going to McDonald’s just to spill coffee on their laps.

jasun mark was also the same person who stalked nebraska wrestlers paul donahoe and kenny jordan on myspace and assured them that no one would ever find out if the did a scene for ‘fratmen’. it ended up costing them their scholarships. both ‘corbin fisher’ and jasun mark exploit naive youth. i have no pity for them. i don’t know how they sleep.

I was never and still am not a model scout or model manager and my interaction with the guys you’re talking about was limited to “hi, nice to meet you” and driving them to get their hair cut. I think I did a 45-second video with one of the guys talking about how he was a baseball player or something.

What does an accident one of them (apparently) had a couple years later have to do with me or the studio they worked for?

And… what does that story have to do with another studio trying to stop the open piracy of their content?

Or are you just throwing grenades and seeing if one of them blows something up?

All of this information is available on their 2257 pages, corporate filings, press releases, interviews, news articles, etc. This list took less than an hour to compile.

It isn’t really a mystery.

Feb 26, 2011 at 5:22 pm · @Reply ·

Charles

@lol: It is safe to assume you are not a paying member of Corbin Fisher, or you would have noticed that Dawson’s mom did a Pete’s Attic radio show on 12/23/2010 with Dawson where she expressed her great pride and love for her son, and that he had the support of his entire family.

If you are curious where all they have shot, they are on record (various press releases, Pete’s Attic shows, etc.) as having done productions in New York, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Key West, San Diego, Sydney Australia, Melbourne Australia, Wellington NZ, Prague, Budapest, the Manuel Antonio region of Costa Rica and most recently Buenos Aires Argentina and Santiago, Chile.

Sounds like you might be ashamed of yourself. You shouldn’t be. I think being fucked in the ass can be quite natural and pleasurable, and certainly nothing to make fun of in this forum — you might encourage a young reader to feel bad.

Feb 26, 2011 at 5:57 pm · @Reply ·

Trial By Stone

Just read yesterday that some suits brought by Liberty Media were dismissed in a different case.

They filed suit against 1000 and couldn’t even go after that number individually, so there’s no way they can go after 40,000

Feb 26, 2011 at 6:02 pm · @Reply ·

RJ

This is some seriously messed up logic:

Gay Kids might kill themselves so let them get away with stealing?

There is plenty of “free” porn available on the internet.

Should we also allow them to steal playgirl from the local magazine store?

Feb 26, 2011 at 6:45 pm · @Reply ·

Eddie

I think can speak for all of Cf’s paying members when I say gay kids are a joke. They do no pay for the service so who cares. If you kill someone you don’t get a slap on the wrist you get subject to the full extent of the law. Same goes for this.

If their lives are ruined or even if they kill themselves, oh well, they should have paid the 35 dollars a month,then theyd still be alive.

Feb 26, 2011 at 7:05 pm · @Reply ·

B

No. 134 · Kev C wrote, “The suicide contagion theory for gay teens was promoted by anti-gay conservatives like Ken Trump. The experts were clueless as to why these suicides were happening, not realizing that they’d always been happening but the reporting of them had increased.”

Not really true – a “suicide contagion theory” was being promoted regarding a town near San Francisco due to a spike in the rate of teen suicides, all jumping in front of trains, so this theory is not specific to gay teens. It was not a case of an increase in reporting (all train accidents are reported). The number of suicides in a one year period was noticeably higher than the yearly average, but not implausibly high given that such random events follow a Poisson distribution. So, the “contagion” theory may be nonsense, but not due to some “anti-gay” thing as the theory has been suggested for straight teens as well.

The suicides resulted in a visit from the Phelps clan, who picketed a university as well (and this was reported in a QUEERTY article). They attributed the suicides as divine retribution for the area’s gay-friendly reputation.

Feb 26, 2011 at 7:24 pm · @Reply ·

peter

Obviously something has to be done to stop all the wholesale sharing of copywritten material on bittorrents, but I don’t think that’s what Liberty and Randazza are about. Rather, they’re hoping it turns into the goose that laid the golden egg. Not only will litigation settlements offset sagging revenues, they may make them richer than they ever imagined. Liberty may might quit porn and go into the suing business. Sounds like there’s better money in it.

I recently listened to the Jake Lyons interview. It sounds like they hoped to use him to get at the deeper pockets of Rent Boy, only he wouldn’t play ball with them.

Feb 26, 2011 at 7:44 pm · @Reply ·

Adam

@ Eddie, I hope you kill yourself for holding such reprehensible opinions.

@ Charles, we know you work for Corbin Fisher (Aaron Anderson perhaps?), so you will not sway public opinion by posting with different names on the various blogs covering this story.

Feb 26, 2011 at 8:35 pm · @Reply ·

Peter

There are an awful lot of real names and addresses being thrown out here.

While I disapprove of what Liberty and Randazza are doing, DO NOT BRING THE GUYS INTO THIS!

Somebody mentioned not only Dawson’s real name, but the name of his mother and father. That’s just wrong, and I think queerty should delete that post. I’ve known guys who have worked with Dawson and adjectives like “prince”, “sweatheart”, and “total husband-material” have been used. Nobody has a bad thing to say about him.

Without naming names, a lot of these guys come from pretty harsh backgrounds and have had to deal with a lot of heavy shit in their short lives. Amateur College Men provided them with a way to overcome severe economic hardship and help out their families. Until recently, it has also provided curious guys a safe place to explore their sexuality unmolested. This bareback stuff has got to stop! Safe sex is hot sex! When I see Dawson with a rubber on, I know he means business! And I think his mom would sleep easier knowing he has one on, too.

Feb 26, 2011 at 8:53 pm · @Reply ·

Adam

@ Peter, I don’t think nobody here posted Dawson’s real name.

I know the real names of almost all the models (past and present), and I’ll never post them here. They are innocent bystanders in this thing.

Aaron T. Anderson is fair game tho…. he’s an employee of Corbin Fisher.

Feb 26, 2011 at 9:06 pm · @Reply ·

Kev C

@B: The point is that contagion theory was raised based on previous incidents, but without any evidence of it happening in these recent cases of gay “bullycide”. The recent cases included 2 straight kids who were percieved as gay and victimized by homophobic bullying. Straight kids who wouldn’t be following gay news stories, nor copying gay suicides, nor would straight kids want to be gay “martyrs”, as the theory goes. So the evidence for contagion in these cases is NONE. School bullying of gays and percieved gays is the real problem.

Feb 26, 2011 at 9:07 pm · @Reply ·

B

No. 180 · Kev C wrote, “@B: The point is that contagion theory was raised based on previous incidents, but without any evidence of it happening in these recent cases of gay “bullycide”. ”

My point was that this “contagion” theory is raised anytime there is a spike in the number of teenage suicides, and it is independent of the victims’ sexual orientations. People in general don’t understand statistics and, all the more so when they think their children could be threatened, they look for something to blame or something to do, and there is nothing to blame and nothing to do if you randomly get six suicides in a year when the mean is 1 or 2 per year. What ends up happening is that there is a flurry of activity (“experts”, parent meetings, etc.) and when the number randomly goes back to normal the next year, everyone pats themselves on the back for solving the problem.

Feb 26, 2011 at 9:22 pm · @Reply ·

Kev C

@B: The people who raised the contagion issue are experts in school security and school psychologists. These experts were in denial about the bullying happening in schools and looked for alternatives to blame. Even going so far as to blame the suicides on a radical gay agenda. These experts are the ones who should be ashamed, because it is their job to provide advice for security and healthcare for schools.

Feb 26, 2011 at 9:34 pm · @Reply ·

Charles

@Adam Post 177: Adam, no my name is not Aaron, and I am most definitely not an employee of Corbin Fisher.

And even if I was, I would still have every bit as much right to post here as you do, as often as you do. Especially when you post incorrect information in an attempt to mislead others and say hateful things. Now kindly point me to the other blogs you are referring to and I’ll be happy to correct any erroneous comments you’ve made there as well.

And BTW, it isn’t nice to wish for someone to kill themselves — supposedly we are all trying to save lives here. Eddie has a right to express his opinions as well.

getting a subscription to corbin fisher or any porn site requires a credit card. how many fifteen year-old guys do you know with a visa? $35 is a lot of money for a fifteen year-old. also, it is illegal for someone under 18 (in some states 21) to view pornography. sharing downloads are their only access.

eddie you’re ignorant and awful. i hope you have a slow, painful death.

It would seem to me that Corbin Fisher has purchased a boatload of bad publicity for the portion it will get. Most of the money will go to the attorney, who probably pulls the intimidation game for multiple clients. Anyone want to know why attorneys have such bad reputations only need look at this bottom-feeder.

Feb 26, 2011 at 10:45 pm · @Reply ·

B

No. 182 · Kev C wrote, ‘@B: The people who raised the contagion issue are experts in school security and school psychologists.’

In the rash of suicides I described (high school kids, all from the same school, jumping in front of trains), experts in child psychology were also consulted (or at least, people they thought were experts). As far as I can see, it is precisely the same reaction, and they talked about “copycat” behavior as a factor.

I might add that a cynic would note that it would not be good business to tell the parents that, if the mean rate is (say) two
per years, once every N years on the average you will see 6 or more per year just due to chance. It isn’t surprising. First, the parents wouldn’t like that answer and would simply get someone else to tell them what they want to hear. Second, there would be nothing for the “expert” to do if random chance was the cause.

Feb 26, 2011 at 11:58 pm · @Reply ·

BlogShag

Oh please. Gag me. Try growing up black or latino. But hmm, let’s see, you’re white and pretty and you’re going to commit suicide because you were outed?

All of you idiots on here feeling sorry for those involved in piracy and copyright infringments are ridiculous.

And what about the companies making all this stuff available for free? Are they immune to prosecution? I see ads for porn and at the same time you can look at the same clip their advertising for free with some of these web sites.

Feb 27, 2011 at 12:01 am · @Reply ·

ronin

There have been some interesting points made on here, but…..

1.) Can you imagine a court system going through 40,000 lawsuits for this??

2.)Corbin Fisher has made its point…. they don’t want people illegally downloading/uploading their stuff…. if this had anything to do with protecting copyrighted material, spending time and money suing 40,000 isn’t what they would do…. that’s what a company who wants blood money will do.

3.)It’s 2011…. you really can’t equate someone who downloads a porn scene from someone else, to any other kind of “thief”.

4.) Lawsuits become public records… it’s not too far fetched to think that someone, a kid or an adult, who gets publicly sued (names could wind up in the paper and local news)for messing with gay porn could see no other way out…

Well the countdown to the end of amnesty is nearing… I guess we will see what moves they make.

Feb 27, 2011 at 12:29 am · @Reply ·

Dayton

@Peter: At one point I would have agreed with you. However, Marc Randazza has stated that he would be doing kids a favor by outing them. It is an outrageous statement when speaking of outing a minor child. After that comment, I care very little of the outing of a porn performer.

Corbin Fisher has damaged their brand in record time. They have become better known for lawsuits and outings than they have porn.

Feb 27, 2011 at 12:58 am · @Reply ·

B

No. 189 · ronin wrote, “There have been some interesting points made on here, but….. 3.)It’s 2011…. you really can’t equate someone who downloads a porn scene from someone else, to any other kind of “thief”.”

Well, a person who downloads something from someone else is not a thief unless someone who buys an imitation brand-name watch is one. The person who replicated the material may be a copyright infringer. The DMCA, however, has an exemption for OSPs (Online Service Providers) such as youtube – they are not guilty of copyright infringement if they meet certain critiera (e.g., responding promptly to take-down notices). The definition of an OSP can plausibly include someone running a bit-torrent server provided that person is simply providing a community service and not explicitly making copyrighted material available (e.g., by buying a DVD, pulling off the video files, and offering it to everyone). http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/dmca.htm has a discussion of the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA.

@B:
Thanks so much for breaking it down. Now if someone can just take that and shove it down his throat that would be awesome.

Feb 27, 2011 at 5:56 am · @Reply ·

Trial By Stone [Different person #1 using similar name]

Marc Randazza, congratulations on creating a violent shitstorm for your client, one that is going to have horrendous and lasting consequences.

Feb 27, 2011 at 8:42 am · @Reply ·

Gigi

@Tylertime: Are you kidding me? Do you think a horny young kid is thinking about anything other than getting off? He’s not going to consider that his parents will ever find his downloaded porn on his computer – most kids have their own these days, they don’t share with their parents. Kids don’t think about consequenses, they think with their dicks. Come to think of it, so do adults!

Feb 27, 2011 at 11:22 am · @Reply ·

Adam

@ Trial By Stone

Randazza may have started it, but the people of Corbin Fisher are at fault here. PR 101 will teach you that for a company not soil its name (like Corbin Fisher, even tho their defendants here claim not, has done completely), they need to kill the controversy at it’s source: fire Randazza and release a press statement denouncing his statements.

But Corbin Fisher not only didn’t do that, but went as far as to conduct a ¨study¨ with an ¨expert¨(I really would like to know the name of said ¨expert¨ and have his/her license revoked) to pull some magic numbers out their ass and put a price on life (of precious gay teen life to boot).

The thing is, I don’t think they even know where to stop. They have grown accustomed of bullying others (see Jake Lyons lawsuit, etc.) that they think they are untouchable and that the law only works for them.

Feb 27, 2011 at 11:30 am · @Reply ·

Dayton

@Adam: It’s one thing to bully one young man (Jake Lyons) and quite another to bully a cross-section of gay youth.

More and more outlets, most recently AfterElton, are picking up this story. Once they start harassing people with extortion letters or lawsuits this will explode.

And God forbid, one teen is kicked out or hurt themselves, Corbin Fisher is out of business. They certainly can’t claim they didn’t see it coming. By their own admission, they claim to have consulted a “therapist”. Supposedly that “therapist” encouraged the outing of the thieving little shits.

Feb 27, 2011 at 12:25 pm · @Reply ·

yawn

How peoples’ logic absolves the individual of any responsibility here is crazy. I do hope CF disciplined their lawyer in some way but, at the end of the day, even a closeted person is responsible for their own actions. I don’t expect a company to suffer just because the people violating their copyrights are out enough to download gay porn, but not out enough to get caught doing it.

Randazza is responsible for his words. Closeted people are responsible for illegally downloading videos. Just because you’re in the closet doesn’t mean the law shouldn’t apply to you.

Feb 27, 2011 at 2:31 pm · @Reply ·

alex

What is this, 1992? Who still pays for porn?

Feb 27, 2011 at 2:33 pm · @Reply ·

Dayton

@B: Corbin Fisher, for the asking, could have had their content taken down from some of the largest file-sharing sites. That would have been an easy and effective way to cut down on piracy. They then could have gone after their own members who are uploading and stealing their content.

They would rather leave the content out there and then extort and shakedown a larger pool of people as an added revenue source. Pretty sleazy I believe. But this is to be expected when you combine porn and lawyers.

What do you expect from a company that exploits barely legals in exchange for copious amounts of money? Of course they don’t have any standards!

Feb 27, 2011 at 2:57 pm · @Reply ·

BlogShag

@199 you do have a point, however to get the good stuff or some exclusive content, normally it still has to be paid for, because people without technical skills don’t know how to hi-jack it. Gay porn powerhouse companies like Titan Media (TitanMen), and Falcon have been known to successfully sue companies violating their copyrights

Feb 27, 2011 at 4:59 pm · @Reply ·

Someone

I’m one of those teens, due to the economy, jobs are hard to feet, think I can pay for this each month? If I could I really would, but had to use torrents, and I’ve had bullying in the past which nearly got me to commit suicide, now I have to deal with this as well. If they do continue and my mother (who I onl
Y live with)finds out, I will have to seriously do something to myself.

CF should just announce to remove the torrents and stop sharing, if people do t listen to that and continue, then they should take legal issues, at least then people have had a fair warning and it’s better for CF that way.

But from now I’m not using torrents ever again. But this is effecting my life style already, I can’t sleep good, and I’m constantly thinking about it, it’s driving me insane, literally.

This porn wasn’t “stolen”, it’s amazing how fucking inept some of these pro CF posters are, it really is.

If something is “stolen” it’s a criminal offense and you’d possibly do jail time.

The Best Buy comparison is so far off it’s embarrassing.

Think before you post in the future.

Thanks

Feb 27, 2011 at 10:42 pm · @Reply ·

bj85

@Law Boy:
The FBI has investigated and gone after people for copyright violations. It is a criminal offense. Usually they’ve focused on rampant uploaders but that doesn’t mean downloaders are innocent or immune. It’s against the law and you can get punished for it.

Even if you “couldn’t afford it” or came up with any other excuse to seek out, for free, what you’re supposed to pay for and doesn’t belong to you.

Feb 27, 2011 at 10:53 pm · @Reply ·

B

No. 198 · yawn wrote, “How peoples’ logic absolves the individual of any responsibility here is crazy. I do hope CF disciplined their lawyer in some way but, at the end of the day, even a closeted person is responsible for their own actions. I don’t expect a company to suffer just because the people violating their copyrights are out enough to download gay porn, but not out enough to get caught doing it.”

I don’t think anyone is objecting to a movie company (even a porn outfit like CF) going after someone who grabs their “content” off of one of their servers and publishes it, whether for free or not.

However, suppose a kid uses bit-torrent to download a movie of any kind from some source and puts all these downloads in the same directory, and also runs a background process that removes old entries, either to keep the total byte count in the directory to within some limit, or removing the entries based on how long they have been there? Technically, what the kid has done is legal because he’s implemented a cache and the DMCA has an exemption for caching (the exemption is there because browsers typically keep local copies temporarily for performance reasons). In this case the kid may technically be no more or less of an infringer than someone who buys a book from a bookstore, not knowing that the bookstore got the book from a copyright infringer (or alternatively, someone who goes to a movie theater whose owner shows a pirated copy of a film – most of us would not blame the person who bought a ticket at the theater). My guess: the kid would get off if he hired a good lawyer with a credible slate of expert witnesses who could explain the technological details to the judge.

Feb 27, 2011 at 11:06 pm · @Reply ·

B

[second try – QUEERTY seems to have lost this]
No. 198 · yawn wrote, “How peoples’ logic absolves the individual of any responsibility here is crazy. I do hope CF disciplined their lawyer in some way but, at the end of the day, even a closeted person is responsible for their own actions. I don’t expect a company to suffer just because the people violating their copyrights are out enough to download gay porn, but not out enough to get caught doing it.”

I don’t think anyone is objecting to a movie company (even a porn outfit like CF) going after someone who grabs their “content” off of one of their servers and publishes it, whether for free or not.

However, suppose a kid uses bit-torrent to download a movie of any kind from some source and puts all these downloads in the same directory, and also runs a background process that removes old entries, either to keep the total byte count in the directory to within some limit, or removing the entries based on how long they have been there? Technically, what the kid has done is legal because he’s implemented a cache and the DMCA has an exemption for caching (the exemption is there because browsers typically keep local copies temporarily for performance reasons). In this case the kid may technically be no more or less of an infringer than someone who buys a book from a bookstore, not knowing that the bookstore got the book from a copyright infringer (or alternatively, someone who goes to a movie theater whose owner shows a pirated copy of a film – most of us would not blame the person who bought a ticket at the theater). My guess: the kid would get off if he hired a good lawyer with a credible slate of expert witnesses who could explain the technological details to the judge.

Get back to me when someone who downloaded a 20 minute gay porn scene from a torrent site is perused by the FBI or goes to prison. This case would be laughed at if they tried to say it was a criminal offense.

If your company is going to have any hope of success to brag about, it needs to focus on its own members who supplied internetland with the content for free. The rest of the cases of the tens of thousands of torrent downloaders are a total crap shoot, and not financially feasible. Very little to gain and a lot to lose.

Feb 28, 2011 at 12:23 am · @Reply ·

bj85

@Law Boy:
Because the FBI has chosen to focus on motion picture and music investigations does not make it any less illegal to infringe upon adult content copyrights. The law is the law, and provides for both civil and criminal means of enforcement. In this particular case, it just happens to be civil. But the law in question, and being violated by those infringing, is the same. In fact, adult companies often have to be all the more aggressive on the legal front because of the lack of enforcement on the criminal front.

BTW, it should be noted that people have been pursued for supplying. What’s been overlooked here is a considerable number of people who had “hacked” in to CF and either stole videos for personal use or to upload to torrents have also been pursued in a separate legal action from this one.

Further, the individual who was hit with the $250,000 judgement in recent legal action brought by CF was an uploader/distributor.

This is part of a comprehensive effort on both the legal and technical front to protect intellectual property and discourage individuals from illegally reproducing and distributing material. If DRM shows us anything, though (and this is the experience of both non adult and adult companies), even technical solutions need to be backed up on the legal front. Many pirates can be quite creative in how they go about acquiring and distributing videos, and so one or the other is not an option.

This suit against users follows at least a dozen against companies enabling the illegal distribution via file-sharing sites and tube sites.

But successfully taking down a tube site on which videos were being illegally distributed only led to individuals finding other sites to upload to. Taking down a file-sharing site led people to seek out another. Taking down uploaders just opened the door to new uploaders. Each technical solution lasts awhile, before it’s rendered obsolete by very aggressive pirates. When videos get removed from one torrent service, they pop up on another.

Ultimately, you really are left with no choice but to include those who provide the demand, just as much as those who provide the supply and those who enable it all.

In the case of torrents, those downloading and uploading are one in the same, which makes it all the more worthy of attention. To access material, users are encouraged to supply a great deal. When a user downloads material in to their shared folder, they in turn make it available to countless others.

So, those downloading are as intricately involved in the entire problem as those who originally supplied. They can not be absolved of responsibility, and the problem of illegal reproduction and distribution does not exist without them. So any comprehensive legal campaign against piracy has to include them. It’s not a question of how financially feasible it is to pursue them, because there is immeasurable value in dissuading anyone from pirating material in the future or acquiring it without permission. Certainly, the deep pockets (tube sites, file-sharing sites and the business and companies involved in piracy would be where the money is at) make appealing targets and have been pursued as well. But no real progress can be made when those seeking out the material simply move from one service to another. Very little, if any, direct revenue comes from it. But discouraging people from engaging in the piracy in the first place and rendering them unwilling to risk it has considerable value.

Feb 28, 2011 at 12:46 am · @Reply ·

B

No. 209 · Law Boy “Get back to me when someone who downloaded a 20 minute gay porn scene from a torrent site is perused by the FBI or goes to prison. This case would be laughed at if they tried to say it was a criminal offense.”

The FBI has more important things to do (and some things are illegal civilly but not criminally). Regardless, there is an amazing amount of abuse going around as large corporations try to use the government to fill their every desire.

if you need something to worry about. (Some of the article mention Sony, which is probably very mad at me due to my personal policy of not buying any Sony product given the company’s behavior, not to mention my opinion regarding the quality of their products based on bad personal experiences in the past.)

Feb 28, 2011 at 12:55 am · @Reply ·

Ronin

But getting back to the original point of the queerty article…. CF has a right to try and protect their material, and they have a right to call for a stop of uploading/downloading material…. but to blindly throw out “40,000” lawsuits… it’s gonna be a media frenzy and not in a good way.

That delivery options are limited does not mean the company isn’t entitled to earn revenue from the product it creates (the extent of online piracy is evidence the demand does exist. That people are bypassing legal distribution channels does not mean the company is not entitled to generate revenue off that demand).

In terms of torrents, it is a pressing issue all the more. The “casual downloader”, if there is such a thing, ends up being an uploader at the same time. They contribute to the piracy supply issue, whether or not they go out of their way to do it.

Certainly, there is always an original source of each file (and, oftentimes, multiple sources of multiple original versions). But that a video is then able to spread so far and so wide is testament to the role the downloaders play. 100 people download the original, and in turn each uploads it to 100 more, and so on and so on. In fact, that’s precisely how torrents operate. Downloaders are able to get files more quickly and easily the more widespread that file becomes on the network. Torrents operate on the basis that each downloader, in turn, begins to supply the file to others. It is what makes them such an efficient means of delivery. 1 person uploads the file, makes it available to however many others, and the next person(s) to come along is then able to retrieve it from everyone who accessed it before them. So, downloaders are just as involved in the offense being committed as anyone else.

Feb 28, 2011 at 1:46 am · @Reply ·

B

No. 213 · bj85 wrote, “Certainly, there is always an original source of each file (and, oftentimes, multiple sources of multiple original versions). But that a video is then able to spread so far and so wide is testament to the role the downloaders play.”

You can make the same statement about people uploading copyrighted material to youtube, and youtube is not held responsible (due to youtube following the “safe harbor” rules provided in the DMCA). I’m hard pressed to see a valid argument for going after someone who is merely acting as an OSP (Online Service Provider) as long as they follow the rules – the rules that apply to youtube apply to individuals.

In my opinion, it is sleazy beyond belief to go after any kid who is essentially behaving no differently than youtube simply because he/she does not have youtube’s lawyers on retainer.

Also, the infringement problem can be solved by going after the people putting out torrent files of copyrighted material – without those files, you can’t transfer any material as the bit-torrent protocol seems to require those files to get started.

I know how torrents work, I still think it’s a stretch to go after such a vast number person by person in all different states. Why would a porn company succeed where enormous studios with countless resources failed? The amount of money they invested into seeking out and bringing people to court cost them tens of millions. But, still you can find just about any new or old movie ever made online ready to be downloaded via torrents. In the end I think they recouped under 5% of what they invested. For a movie studio that’s fine, for a porn company I think it would be hard to swallow such a loss.

I just cannot see it being financially wise for a porn company to invest such money with little hope of real collection. I think it’s wrongfully assumed that the downloaders will end up being paying members when they stop torrenting. This case, if anything will just scare everyone, including potential future customers into completely avoiding the studios product altogether. There’s quite a few porn studios with similar content to CF out there, I think they will be the real winners of this whole ordeal.

Feb 28, 2011 at 2:43 am · @Reply ·

Law Boy

I read something interesting regarding how torrent users information is collected a few weeks ago. Essentially the person who is looking for the IP addresses of those involved in the torrent must connect to that swarm, in effect downloading and uploading the file as well.

You could have a porn company or a company in the porn’s employ seeding their own product to torrent users. That’s wild stuff.

Actually you can’t really treat an individual like an ISP. ISPs do have certain obligations under DMCA – takedown processes and mechanisms, a registered DMCA agent, and such. For instance, YouTube, in order to benefit from safe harbor provisions, needs to put certain systems, mechanisms and processes in place. If an ISP were to not abide by it’s obligations, it does not benefit from safe harbor. It can’t simply respond to takedown notices and expect all will be fine if it did not attend to the initial requirements.

So, I don’t know of any individual torrent user who has a registered DMCA agent or has fulfilled the obligations under DMCA to qualify as an ISP with safe harbor.

If you were to say ISPs and individuals on torrents were one in the same, I could accept that IF the individual took the same steps than an ISP took – had a registered DMCA agent, made their business information public and accessible (so, in this case, personal info), responded to takedown notices and requests, provided to copyright holders the information of sources, etc. But clearly individuals on torrents don’t do that, and are not accessible in that way. Safe harbor is designed to ensure material can be removed quickly and easily (and that ISPs are protected), but individuals do not submit themselves to the same scrutiny ISPs do and so it really does not apply to them.

Feb 28, 2011 at 2:55 am · @Reply ·

bj85

@Law Boy:
I don’t think anyone is under any delusions any and all torrent users are potential paying customers. I do believe, however, there are “casual” torrent users and pirates who can be converted in to paying customers – either because it becomes to difficult for them to find the stuff otherwise, or they’re scared away from the torrents. Getting stuff removed from the networks and from venues facilitating piracy, as well as making it inconvenient and unappealing to seek out stuff illegally – all serve to encourage those to stick to legitimate and legal channels. Certainly there will always be those who simply won’t pay for IP online (adult or non). But there are plenty more who can be persuaded.

But, given torrent downloaders and users are one in the same, going after those who demand the material also means getting the ones who supply it. If you are able to effectively decrease the availability of your material, that can have a real impact.

Thanks for your responses, I can see where you’re coming from. I just wonder if someone who downloaded a video via torrents, who is then sued, will be persuaded and endeared toward a product enough to become an enthusiastic paying customer.

Feb 28, 2011 at 3:26 am · @Reply ·

bj85

@Law Boy:
Well, to be quite frank, the amnesty program did present an opportunity for that (and I know I’m opening up a can of worms by bringing it up as people have a wide range of opinions regarding it, and perceive it in many different ways). But, as anyone can see from the PRs about it, those who took up the amnesty offer were offered free, year-long memberships, as well as were engaged in discussions and conversations intended to share with them the value in paying for things, convey to them the risks in illegally downloading, etc. It did offer an opportunity to engage people who knew they had committed an unlawful act in dialogue and discussion. I should hope someone who was given a year-long membership could at least see some value in the legal acquisition of material (after all… torrents can be a pain in the butt with viruses, fake files, incomplete files, etc).

But, I also think that for every torrent user, there are countless more waiting in the wings. So long as torrents are perceived to be consequence-free, hassle-free options, more people will seek them out. Will defendants become paying customers en masse? Likely not. But will others contemplating torrents, or made newly aware of torrents, be dissuaded from using them when they see the risk they entail and what torrent users who preceded them went through? Very likely, I believe.

At the end of the day, it’s more than just the *act* that is the problem. It is really, in my opinion, the mentality and attitude that digital product doesn’t require payment. And that attitude is very prevalent, as you can see by many comments in this thread. I understand digital content is intangible and ethereal, in a way – you can’t hold it in your hand, so people feel it’s different than a physical DVD or hard-copy product. But it still did cost money to make and distribute, and was still produced with profit in mind.

I’ll be the first to say it would be hypocritical of any producer of digital works to deny that intangibility has its benefits. First and foremost among them, I think, would be the ability to “re-sell” a work, in theory, an infinite # of times (which is to say, you release a copy of a work online and you can let countless users pay for and download it, without having to replicate or duplicate a new physical product each time). So, in essence, the opportunities and benefits digital delivery provides are also the root of the biggest problem with it, i.e. the extent of unauthorized reproduction and distribution and piracy possible.

A pirate is not constrained by having to replicate or duplicate, physically, the product either. A pirate does not need an elaborate distribution network. A single individual can illegally distribute a file countless times over, and to countless people. Let’s say you do just have a “casual downloader” who gets a half dozen files off a torrent… and then leaves their computer connected and goes to bed. In the 8 hours before they wake up and get back on to their computer, hundreds – if not thousands – of other users could have accessed those files.

Further, adult companies operate with much different margins than their Hollywood or music industry counterparts. Musicians can tour to make money (which is where many make most of their income). Live appearances, record sales, merchandise, etc etc. Hollywood can license movies, merchandise, etc. Hollywood studios tend to recoup all costs in a movie when it’s still in theatres (that’s the aim, at least). So subsequent PPV (such as in hotels), merchandise, physical product (DVD) sales are all opportunities to extend profit. Adult companies do not have all those options at their disposal. So the core model, whether it be a company that focuses on DVDs or a website, is really it for most.

Think about all the points at which a Hollywood film can make money… in theatres, in PPV, the merchandise, the DVD, the licensing fees for TV, re-releases, foreign theatre releases, foreign DVD, etc etc.

Then look at an adult site… in the case of CF a user pays $50/month for access to both sites. In exchange, they get about 20 videos per month for that. About $2.50/video. Consider that models had to get paid for that video, had to be recruited and scouted, had to be flown to the location, housed, fed, transported while there, videographers had to film it, editors had to edit it, programmers had to put it online, a photographer had to take the still images for it, and then there are other indirect costs such as marketing it or promoting it, the bandwidth costs of hosting and delivering it many times over, etc etc. So, the producers ability to “re-sell” that video many times over is essential to their being able to produce it at all. An individual’s $2.50 certainly didn’t pay for that. Even 1000 individuals paying $2.50/piece didn’t cover it. It requires being “purchased” thousands upon thousands of times for any costs to be recovered, much less profit made.

It’s not a bad deal for the end-user. Indeed, the next time you go to the movie theatre and spend $10 for a ticket and $20 on concessions, just think about that $2.50 and how good a deal it was. What’s more, with many adult sites you can keep your videos forever. At the movie theatre, you buy your ticket and go inside and that’s that. If you want a copy to keep forever you have to buy it on DVD or iTunes all over again (and, BTW, adult companies make no money off porn store rentals or porn theatre showings. The store/theatre buys a single copy and then rents it as much as they want. No fees get paid to the producer beyond the initial wholesale purchase).

Again, I just think it’s plainly apparent even in the comments here that there are those committed to never paying for a physical product, or believing they have the right to determine what is and is not lawful, based upon their own judgements. The law does not endorse that perspective, though. And, beyond those folk, I would also imagine there are plenty of “casual” downloaders and borderline folk, who can be swayed from one to the other, and so it is vital to make it apparent to those people that illegal acquisition entails risk, potential consequence, and hassle that make it an unappealing option.

Feb 28, 2011 at 4:07 am · @Reply ·

bj85

BTW, “Law Boy” and “B”, I do appreciate the civil discussion – a welcome opportunity to see some different opinions and a civil, engaging, productive manner, I feel.

And I do appreciate the clear evidence you are both informed individuals. People certainly are entitled to reach their own conclusions, and come to their own decisions. Even though I don’t always agree, I can respect and appreciate when a person has reached their end-points after taking the time to become informed and educated on an issue.

I do look forward to more exchanges and the opportunity to learn from one another.

@bj85: The “amnesty program” is a money grab and attempt to get information by a sleazy organization that I suspect you work for.

Porn studios have always been the worst kind of filth and just because one of them (for once) has a decent legal case does not change that fact. Cf blatantly creates grave health risks for its “models” solely for its own profit and promotes the “straight is better than gay” mentality that is a sickness in the community. Nothing would make me happier than to see this “business” die an agonizing death.

Good luck with your 40,000 lawsuits. Watch out, though. Counterclaims can be a bitch.

Plaintiff: Oh, Mr. Judge… I stole stuff from him and he told people… now my life is ruined.

Judge: Yeah, no shit.

Feb 28, 2011 at 10:32 am · @Reply ·

Dayton

@justiceontherocks: Actually, Corbin Fisher doesn’t have a decent legal case at all. See the post above yours. These cases are being thrown out left and right. That is why they are going the extortion route first. Why would you settle for $1000 (or $1900), if you thought you could get $100,000? Because Corbin Fisher cares?

Check out the latest update at Unicorn Booty. The editor has posted a touching video of his outing due to gay porn and its relation to the tactics of Corbin Fisher.

First, the term is OSP (an ISP is a special case of that), and there is no take-down process for certain cases (See Paragraph 512
(a) and (b) – “Transitory Digital Network Communication” and
“System Caching” : http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512—-000-.html . If a bit-torrent client is designed or configured so that the files it stores are there on a transitory basis (e.g., aged out after some time, etc.), the owner of that client may be off the hook – the blame has to be attributed to the person who set up the torrent file, or maybe one of the trackers. To qualify, the client has to be acting autonomously. There is no reason for a take-down notice directed to the client in this case – once the torrent file goes away, nobody will find the copy and the client will automatically remove it in some reasonable time.

The other problem is that the mechanisms currently used to identify people who are infringing are such that they can be easily attacked in court (based on recent research). Seehttp://dmca.cs.washington.edu/dmca_hotsec08.pdf for a technical article. The researchers managed to get take-down notices for computers that never uploaded or downloaded a single byte of copyrighted material. Then they showed how you could misidentify the recipient. They even got take-down notices directed to the IP address of some printers that don’t run bit-torrent at all. If you don’t like someone, it is pretty easy to frame them.

Feb 28, 2011 at 3:43 pm · @Reply ·

John

A prediction:

If Corbin Fisher’s actions results in the death of even ONE gay kid then…

This is ridiculous. What about all these companies/websites that host all these 2o minute and full length videos of porn like xvideos, gaystubes, xhamster? There are thousands of sites likes this now- bit torrent not needed. And many of the videos on these sites have the copyright moniker throughout the whole video (e.g. bilatinmen.com, seancody.com) Why are these companies that host these videos exempt from the law? They are the companies fueling criminal activity by allowing their servers to facilitate the proliferation of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material

They should go after litigation of the head honchos like UUNET, Cisco, etc, instead of small fry individuals

Mar 9, 2011 at 4:38 pm · @Reply ·

Thomas

I don’t understand why it seems CorbinFisher is the only one who this unhealthy obsession with going after individuals who download his products. ….Why don’t see see larger studios such as SeanCody and RandyBlue being so zealous about it?

May 29, 2011 at 12:04 pm · @Reply ·

Sterling

Corbin Fisher can go fuck himself.

May 29, 2011 at 1:14 pm · @Reply ·

BlogShag

I can’t believe everyone is on the thieve’s side. The little shit didn’t care about ripping people off either. They’re no different than someone who robs banks or a cat burglar, etc.

May 30, 2011 at 2:06 am · @Reply ·

Pffft

Just let kids download torrents. They’ll be paying customers when they already have the money. Works that way all the time. Duh.

May 30, 2011 at 2:51 am · @Reply ·

Sterling

It’s a complete lie to suggest that these kids are ripping off Corbin Fisher. They’re not old enough to buy the video’s legally so Corbin Fisher would make no money from them anyway.

May 30, 2011 at 3:18 am · @Reply ·

Josh [Different person #1 using similar name]

As bad as they may sound, and the situations that might arise are, I don’t think it’s that ridiculous. They are a legitimate pay site that people are stealing from. These kids knew that and as others have stated there is plenty of free porn out there too. And now people are telling them they should just let them continue to do it and get away with it.

If someone was stealing from you and you knew it would you just let them continually do it because it might get them in serious trouble with their parents or get hurt.

Someone out to think about a class action lawsuit for false-advertising and duping all their subscribers into paying to watch “straight” guys perform gay acts. That would be an interesting lawsuit. If I was a lawyer — I would do it pro-bono.

May 30, 2011 at 6:21 pm · @Reply ·

Ryan

If you really believe there is no difference from robbing a bank to downloading a 20 minute porn video off of a torrent site to watch and jerk off to. Then I’m sitting here wondering how you have the brain power to tie your shoe laces each morning.

Your view is comically embarrassing..

Jun 1, 2011 at 1:03 pm · @Reply ·

JDS

I’ll put it quite simply:

FUCK Corbin Fisher and his lame-ass website of NOT-Straight boys!

I will do everything within my power to spread the word and damage his business as much as I possibly can.

As bad as they may sound, and the situations that might arise are, I don’t think it’s that ridiculous. They are a legitimate pay site that people are stealing from. These kids knew that and as others have stated there is plenty of free porn out there too. And now people are telling them they should just let them continue to do it and get away with it.

If someone was stealing from you and you knew it would you just let them continually do it because it might get them in serious trouble with their parents or get hurt.:

________________________________________________

@Josh #235
If it was going to severely damage their lives or cause them physical harm, or death, I would RETHINK my strategy. It’s called compassion.

The fucker is a PORN PEDDLER. What right does he have to be a fucking greedy self-righteous prick about it? He deals in PORN for a living. May make him money but it sure does put him at the bottom of the scum list as far as being “respectable”. He’s fucking trash, and nothing but. He pays boys to have sex with each other (and himself) for a career. Yeah, I wanna do that. NOT.

What goes around comes around Mr Fisher. You WILL get yours one day, trust me. And I hope when that day comes and he’s begging for someone to care about him, nobody will piss on him if he’s on fire.

Um, JDS, you might wanna dial that back, you’re coming across like some hysterical church lady. You’re also accusing Corbin of paying models to have sex with him… and to my knowledge, he’s never done that. Corbin doesn’t perform on camera. He’s just a director. A good one.

Corbin Fisher, whether your tender heart can take it or not, produces a product for which there’s a huge market. It’s legal to make porn and it’s legal to buy, watch and enjoy porn. Asking what right he has to protect his copyright and make money from the product he’s created just makes you look like a whiney child. Wanting to be paid for the work you invested your own money in doesn’t make you “greedy,” it makes you a businessman. Again, a good one.

Not everyone has your sexual hangups. I personally like to watch porn and being an adult, that’s my right.

Posting on a gay website and trying to place yourself on some moral pedestal (which wishing Corbin a painful death at the end) just makes you come across like a member of some crazy church that pickets funerals.

I hope the press attention you get from the comments one Marc Randazza made against “thieving little shits” that download torrents lead to the downfall of your website. Absolutely distgusting, what kind of a brand ambassador speaks in public like this? I was a fan of this site, and by all means will be cancelling my subscription, not because im not out, but because i wouldent want to give another penny of my hard earned cash, to a foul mouthed twat like that. I hope and believe others will follow suit, and i will DEFINATELY be spreading the word.

Jun 3, 2011 at 11:19 am · @Reply ·

BlogShag

What’s the matter JDS? Did you forget to take your meds?

Jun 3, 2011 at 9:09 pm · @Reply ·

BlogShag

No one has yet explained why they think that violating copyright and stealing is okay? Everyone is on this kids side. Give me a break.

Are we really supposed to believe that this punk didn’t know that hacking into porn sites or whatever the hell he did is wrong? Of course they know, and they’re much more skilled at it then any of us older farts

Oh my god, he got outed. Waaaaaaa! Don’t stick your hand in the alligator’s mouth unless you want it bitten off. Most of us don’t have to be told such things, but common sense seems to be something of the past.

Jun 3, 2011 at 9:16 pm · @Reply ·

Someone [Different person #1 using similar name]

Then people will just move to the hundreds of free porn streaming websites out there that uploads full porn videos from big studios. Who pays for porn anymore?

Jun 4, 2011 at 1:32 am · @Reply ·

Iratedator

The ignorance of the pro-CF posters is overwhelming. Yes, robbing a bank, breaking and entering into someone’s home, and stealing from a store are on par with downloading a 15-min video and then deleting it. /sarcasm

It just goes to show you that “old-farts” like BlogShag, who doesn’t even know what infringement these kids actually committed, can comment from authority and revel in not only some sort of moral pedestal but in his ignorance and judge others. So goes anonymity on the internet.

Corbin Fisher’s company is obviously facing some financial and/or other troubles and has resorted to extortion to make money. Sad, really.

Very little, if any, money would have been made off of pirates. Instead of improving the quality of their product, or making it harder to pirate (through bittorent or other means), or even using filesharing to their advantage, CF has instead resorted to pissing of people who might have otherwise been on their side by resorting to hyperbolic statements, moral disregard, and extortion.

Jun 4, 2011 at 1:06 pm · @Reply ·

BlogShag

@Ryan: It was obviously an exaggeration. But it is stealing. I know lots of people do it by the millions. That doesn’t change what it is
_______________
response to No. 237 · Ryan

If you really believe there is no difference from robbing a bank to downloading a 20 minute porn video off of a torrent site to watch and jerk off to. Then I’m sitting here wondering how you have the brain power to tie your shoe laces each morning.

Your view is comically embarrassing..

Jun 5, 2011 at 2:25 am · @Reply ·

BlogShag

@Iratedator: Obviously comparing what this and millions of kids and adults are doing with porn by illegally obtaining it by comparing it to bank robbing was an exaggeration on my part…however it’s not library stock dumb asses!

I doubt if I’m ignorant when there are people that have been successfully sued by the recording industry for doing the very same thing this kid is guilty of. If you want to see ignorant, then look in the mirror.

The boring pasty white homogenous boys of Corbin Fisher have never gotten my attention. They all start looking the same after a while. BORING! However, the owner does have his right under USA law and international law to protect the copyright of his work. If you don’t agree with Corbin Fisher and pro-CF’ers, then all merchandise for sale available in every showroom or store should be free, or everyone should be able to borrow them for free.

Jun 5, 2011 at 2:36 am · @Reply ·

Iratedator

I’m not calling you ignorant because you haven’t heard of some granny being sued by the RIAA for $50,000 for downloading a Pussycat Dolls song, but because you don’t understand the difference between a digital object and a physical object. Every showroom or store has objects in them that cannot be as easily copied and distributed as digital objects can be on the internet.

This is where the issue of scarcity rears its head. Digital objects like movies, pics, etc. exist in a post-scarcity world and companies have to either accept the cost of doing business in this new world or come up with new and innovative ways to combat it.

Extortion and frivolous lawsuits have done nothing to stem the tide of file-sharing. The RIAA and MPAA might have had a few high-profile cases, but their tactics have failed, and so will Corbin Fishers.

Jun 5, 2011 at 1:50 pm · @Reply ·

Sterling

It pisses me off when infringement is called stealing. It is NOT stealing, not physically, not legally.

Does Corbin Fisher still have the video that these teenagers are accused of stealing? Yes. Is Corbin Fisher deprived for selling more copies of said video? No. So in fact, these teenagers haven’t stolen anything.

There’s a legitimate argument that says that these teenagers couldn’t have purchased a copy of the video(s) they are accused of infringing upon because they are too young to purchase one legally, even if they had the money.

Bottom line: These teenagers have NOT stolen anything from Corbin Fisher and it’s high unlikely they’ve deprived Corbin Fisher of any lost sales either.

What Corbin Fisher is doing is not only ethically wrong but it’s bad business. The backlash from this Scientology-like legal action will be reflected on their fiscal bottom line because people like me will NEVER EVER buy a Corbin Fisher video again.

Get as upset as you want… The people (most of whom were over 18) who downloaded the movies without paying for them had no right to do it and Corbin has every right to go after them legally.

You can throw your little pity parade about how nobody was hurt and how you’ll never buy another one of his movies again… you can even say you don’t think his efforts will be successful. They may not be.

But it’s his right to go after people who infringed his copyright and that’s what he’s doing.

most of all, it’s kinda funny to see all the people who KNOW that they broke the law trying to come up with some reason that it’s ok… kids will get in trouble with mom, bankers get millions in bonuses, “nobody pays for porn.” Try that in court. See how that goes over.

Jun 5, 2011 at 8:31 pm · @Reply ·

BlogShag

@Iratedator: I understand full well what the difference is between a physical object and digital object is, However when it comes to manufacturing and distribution ownership rights, the principle is the same. You and Sterling think the way you do, simply because you don’t work in the motion picture or record industries, hence, you try and justify stealing just because it’s wildly fashionable.

I can assure you, if you worked in these industries, you would be the first to sue or do whatever was legally possible to protect your interests. You’re a hypocrite.

Those of us on the law’s side like I and jasum mark get laughed at and poked fun at because we’re being attacked by selfish wild animal thugs like yourself with no morals or ethics

Jun 6, 2011 at 6:42 pm · @Reply ·

loop232

Corbin Fisher, your new name is HITLER because u are a nazi and people like you is the reason there is still hate and intolerance in the world!!

Jun 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm · @Reply ·

Tom

im trying to figure out your angle on this article: its Corbin Fishers responsibility to make sure that every person regardless of age is fully up to date on copyright laws? thats not their responsibility nor is it their responsibility to be the moral guardian of these people who should know full well whats right and wrong. if this is the kind of thinking your suggesting, you missed the boat with Chairman Maos China in the 40s.

Jun 14, 2011 at 5:17 pm · @Reply ·

wayne

I’d like to make a point…
If stealing/copying/downloading porn is so bad and I’m not saying it is or isn’t…

How does
Blackmail- threatening to out people unless they pay a “fee” for “amnesty” and/or drag them through court proceedings if they dont…
Fraud- Advertising straight guys having sex for the first time when it’s obvious to anyone who’s spent a second thinking about it… is that a fair majority of these “straight guys” are actually gay or at least have been “gay for pay” on multiple ocassions with multiple studios or sometimes even the same…

Seems like Corbin Fisher is committing more offenses than some horny teenagers who probably dont have a credit card even if they wanted to sign up. More importantly they’re making money from blackmail and fraud.

Frankly I’ve never been inclined to download corbin fisher. I’m not even interested enough in the product to steal it let alone pay exorbitant subscription fees for it when I can just watch hot canadians on cam4.com… from what little I’ve seen of it, It’s usually just two white guys(pretending to be straight) having sex… little plot, mediocre action, the only thing I can say about the models are they have nice bodies… that’s it… Not really worth the effort to pay for.

Frankly I hope their law suits get dismissed and the company goes bankrupt so I never have to see one of their pasty white boys being advertised on manhunt again.

Jun 16, 2011 at 7:33 am · @Reply ·

bibbcountystud

Sorry, your post, article, rant, rave or whatever lacked credibility when you couldn’t refrain from using four-letter words and referring to these teens who were killing themselves as “thieving little shits” evcen though you quoted that as a lawyer saying it: “Liberty Media produces straight content too. So any thieving little shit who gets caught can very easily lie to his parents that he was looking at straight porn.”

I really find it difficult that even a lawyer who passed the bar and had a D+ grade average would use such crude language when sending it to a judge. Ever hear of contempt of court?

Impossible to know who or what you are, but I’m guessing you’re actually someone in the employ of Corbin Fisher and out to scare people from illegally downloading their videos.

Your post speaks of anger but you don’t speak of facts.

You’re more than likely an employ of Corbin Fisher and your post was run by the legal department first.